Case Summary
-
Case Title: Korea Marine Transport Co Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO Ward 204 & Ors.
-
Court Name: Delhi High Court
-
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 323/2025
-
Category of Dispute: Adjudication Proceedings under Section 73 – Non-consideration of Reply
-
Date of Judgement: 07 May 2025
-
Relevant Sections: Section 73 and Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017; Rule 142 of CGST Rules
-
Notification in Question: Notification No. 9/2023-CT, 9/2023-ST challenged as ultra vires
Facts of the Case (Para 1–9)
-
The Petitioner challenged:
(i) Order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73,
(ii) Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax (31.03.2023),
(iii) Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax (22.06.2023) – as ultra vires. -
A reply to SCN dated 24.11.2023 was filed by the petitioner.
-
The impugned order ignored this reply and confirmed the demand based on alleged insufficiency and lack of documents.
Question(s) in Consideration (Para 2–6, 9–11)
-
Whether the impugned adjudication order under Section 73 can be sustained if it does not duly consider the reply filed to the SCN?
-
Whether the Notifications extending timelines under Section 168A were validly issued in absence of proper GST Council recommendation?
Observation of Court (Para 4–11)
-
The issue of notification validity is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
-
Delhi High Court is not examining the vires of the notifications at this stage.
-
The adjudicating authority had failed to consider the reply of the Petitioner filed on 24.11.2023 in the impugned order.
-
Procedural violation noted – absence of consideration of reply and lack of reasoned order.
Judgement of the Court (Para 10–15)
-
The impugned order is set aside.
-
Matter remanded back to Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication.
-
A fresh opportunity of hearing shall be granted, and the Petitioner’s earlier reply and personal hearing submissions shall be considered.
-
All rights and remedies reserved; access to GST portal shall be ensured.
-
Validity of notifications kept open – subject to outcome of SC proceedings in SLP No. 4240/2025.
Between Fine Lines
-
The taxpayer’s detailed reply was disregarded, violating principles of natural justice.
-
Delhi High Court remanded the matter for proper adjudication.
-
The legal issue of time extensions under Section 168A is sub judice before the Supreme Court.
-
Adjudication authorities must consider replies meaningfully before confirming demands.
-
No adverse decision on notification validity at this stage.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 | Lead case on challenge to Notification 9/2023 on grounds of lack of GST Council approval | Under consideration by Supreme Court |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST (Telangana) | SLP No. 4240/2025 | SC to decide whether extension of SCN timelines under Sec 168A was valid | Pending before SC |
| Guwahati High Court | – | Notification 56/2023 quashed | Notification held invalid |
| Patna High Court | – | Notification 56/2023 upheld | Notification held valid |
| Allahabad High Court | – | Notification 9/2023 upheld | Notification held valid |
| Engineers India Ltd. v. Union of India | W.P.(C) 9214/2024 | Challenge to parallel State Notification retained for separate consideration | Pending before Delhi High Court |
| Punjab and Haryana HC Batch Order | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Deferred decision on vires; bound by SC decision in SLP 4240/2025 | Interim relief to continue |
