Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Natraj Enterprises through its proprietor Mr. Subhas Jain, filed a writ petition challenging the show cause notice dated 24.09.2023 and the adjudication order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO Ward 71, Zone 6, Delhi for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. By the impugned order, GST demand aggregating to ₹9,17,454 including tax, interest and penalty was confirmed against the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 09/2023 (Central Tax) dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 09/2023 (State Tax) dated 22.06.2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act extending limitation for adjudication.

Issues Involved

Whether the writ petition should be entertained when a statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act is available, whether the adjudication order passed despite filing of a reply warranted remand, and whether the challenge to limitation extension notifications under Section 168A could be adjudicated by the High Court at this stage.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that a detailed reply to the show cause notice was filed on 19.12.2023 but the same was not considered by the adjudicating authority, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. It was further argued that the impugned notifications extending limitation were invalid and that the adjudication order deserved to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents submitted that the challenge to the impugned notifications formed part of a batch of petitions pending before the Supreme Court and various High Courts and that the petitioner had approached the Court after substantial delay. It was contended that the impugned order was appealable and that the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the validity of the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and that various High Courts had taken divergent views on the issue. On facts, the Court observed that although the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner approached the Court after substantial delay. In such circumstances, the Court held that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy rather than remanding the matter. The Court further held that any appeal filed should be adjudicated on merits without being dismissed on the ground of limitation.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that the decision of the appellate authority would be subject to the final outcome of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Engineers India Limited vs Union of India. Access to the GST portal was directed to be provided to enable the petitioner to download necessary documents for filing the appeal.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by 31.01.2026 along with the requisite pre-deposit. It was directed that such appeal, if filed within time, shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court on the validity of the impugned notifications.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75424122025CW196892025_180442.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.