Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Markex Branding Solutions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the adjudication order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi, for Financial Year 2018–19, whereby a demand of ₹41,21,366 was raised. The petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 56/2023–Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023–State Tax dated 11.07.2024 issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act extending limitation for adjudication.

The challenge formed part of a larger batch of writ petitions led by DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India, wherein divergent views had been expressed by various High Courts on the validity of limitation-extension notifications, and the issue was pending consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.

On facts, the Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner, to which a reply dated 09.01.2024 was filed. A reminder dated 01.03.2024 was uploaded on the GST portal. An opportunity of personal hearing was granted, but the petitioner did not avail the same. Thereafter, the impugned adjudication order dated 25.04.2024 was passed.

Issues Involved

Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to interfere with a GST adjudication order where the assessee filed a reply to the show cause notice but did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing, whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, and whether the challenge to limitation-extension notifications should remain subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that although a reply to the Show Cause Notice was filed, the impugned order was passed without granting an effective hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. It was also argued that the limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A were invalid and that the demand order deserved to be set aside in writ jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue submitted that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of personal hearing which was not availed. It was argued that the adjudication order was passed in accordance with law after considering the reply on record. The Department relied on the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act and the pendency of the challenge to limitation-extension notifications before the Supreme Court.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court noted that the Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2023 was duly replied to by the petitioner on 09.01.2024 and that an opportunity of personal hearing was granted but not availed. In such circumstances, the Court held that the adjudication order could not be said to suffer from violation of principles of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226.

The Court further observed that the challenge to the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and that various High Courts had adopted the approach of relegating assessees to statutory remedies, subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction and held that the petitioner must avail the statutory appellate remedy.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that where a reply to the show cause notice is filed but the opportunity of personal hearing is not availed by the assessee, the adjudication order does not automatically warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. The issue of validity of limitation-extension notifications under Section 168A was expressly left open to be governed by the final decision of the Supreme Court.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act on or before 30.11.2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. The Appellate Authority was directed not to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation and to adjudicate the appeal on merits. Access to the GST portal was directed to be enabled for downloading documents. Any order passed in appeal was directed to remain subject to the outcome of SLP No. 4240/2025 pending before the Supreme Court and connected proceedings.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75406102025CW152012025_190418.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.