Delhi HC Allows Appeal Against GST Order; Validity of Notifications Left to SC

Case Reference:

• Case: Shree Krishna Steel Traders Through Proprietor Nikhil Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

• Court: High Court of Delhi

• Petition No.: W.P.(C) 14873/2024 & CM APPL. 62427/2024

• Date of Judgment: 6 May 2025 (corrected & released on 13 May 2025)

• Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of CGST/DGST Act, 2017

• Category of Dispute: Adjudication under Section 73 – Validity of Notifications No. 09/2023 & 56/2023 (Central Tax)

Facts of the Case

(Ref.: Para 2–6)

1. The petitioner challenged (i) Adjudication Order dated 25.08.2024 passed under Section 73 CGST/DGST Act, 2017, (ii) SCN dated 22.05.2024, and (iii) Notifications No. 09/2023–CT & 56/2023–CT, alleging improper extension of limitation without due GST Council recommendation.

2. Notifications were already under judicial scrutiny in multiple High Courts, with divergent views—Allahabad & Patna HCs upholding validity; Gauhati HC quashing; Telangana HC raising doubts; matter pending in SC in SLP No. 4240/2025.

3. Petitioner alleged that though a reply to SCN was filed on 17.06.2024, it was not duly considered and no proper personal hearing was given.

Question(s) in Consideration

(Ref.: Para 4–7)

1. Whether the adjudication order was liable to be quashed on the grounds of denial of adequate hearing and non-consideration of reply.

2. Whether the court should decide the validity of Notifications No. 09/2023 & 56/2023 or leave it pending Supreme Court adjudication.

Observation of Court

(Ref.: Para 7–10)

1. The adjudication order dated 25.08.2024 was a detailed order, where some demands were dropped after considering the reply.

2. Since various High Courts had taken different views and the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, Delhi HC refrained from ruling on the validity of the notifications.

3. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner was an appeal, not a writ petition.

4. Rights and remedies were preserved; GST portal access to be ensured for the petitioner to access notices/documents.

Judgment of the Court

(Ref.: Para 8–11)

1. Writ petition disposed of, permitting petitioner to file an appeal by 10 July 2025 with requisite pre-deposit; appeal not to be dismissed on limitation and to be decided on merits.

2. Validity of Notifications No. 09/2023 & 56/2023 left open, subject to Supreme Court’s decision in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST & Ors.).

3. All rights and remedies of parties kept intact.

Between Fine Lines

• The Delhi HC did not decide on the legality of GST limitation-extension notifications, as the Supreme Court is already seized of the matter.

• The court found that the adjudication order had partially accepted the taxpayer’s reply.

• The correct route for redress was an appeal, not writ jurisdiction.

• Petitioner got relief in form of extended time to appeal without limitation bar.

• Final word on the validity of Notifications No. 09/2023 & 56/2023 will come from the Supreme Court.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”