Case Title: Shri Enterprises v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 3806/2025 & CM APPL. 17729/2025
Date of Judgement: 23rd April, 2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of SCN & Natural Justice (Input Tax Demand under Section 73)
Relevant Section: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017
Notifications in Question: Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax (31.03.2023) and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax (28.12.2023)
Facts of the Case (Paras 2–8)
-
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10.12.2023 was issued to Shri Enterprises for FY 2018–19.
-
An order dated 13.04.2024 under Section 73 CGST Act was passed, raising tax demand.
-
Petitioner also challenged Notification No. 9/2023 and 56/2023, alleging lack of proper GST Council recommendation under Section 168A.
-
Various High Courts have delivered conflicting views on these notifications; the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax).
-
Petitioner submitted that due to ill-health of proprietor, neither reply to SCN was filed nor personal hearing attended, resulting in an ex-parte order.
Questions in Consideration (Paras 5–8, 9)
-
Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 without opportunity of reply and hearing violates principles of natural justice?
-
Whether challenge to Notification Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023 can be entertained when the issue is already before the Supreme Court?
Observations of Court (Paras 5, 9–10, 13)
-
Since validity of notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, Delhi HC will not adjudicate that issue.
-
However, natural justice was denied to petitioner as neither reply was considered nor hearing was granted.
-
Court emphasized that petitioner deserves a fresh opportunity to file reply and present case.
-
Any fresh adjudication will remain subject to SC outcome on validity of notifications.
Judgement of the Court (Paras 11–14)
-
Impugned order dated 13.04.2024 set aside.
-
Petitioner granted 30 days to file reply to SCN.
-
Adjudicating Authority directed to provide personal hearing and decide afresh after considering reply and oral submissions.
-
Clarified: validity of notifications left open – decision subject to Supreme Court outcome.
-
Writ petition disposed of with above directions.
Between Fine Lines (5-line simple summary)
-
Shri Enterprises was issued a GST SCN but couldn’t reply or attend hearing.
-
An ex-parte order under Section 73 was passed, raising demand.
-
Petitioner also challenged GST notifications extending limitation.
-
Delhi HC set aside the order for violation of natural justice.
-
Case remanded for fresh hearing; final outcome depends on Supreme Court’s ruling on notifications.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation / Reference | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 (Delhi HC) | Lead matter challenging Notification Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023 under Sec. 168A. | Pending adjudication, clubbed batch. |
| HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST & Ors. | SLP No. 4240/2025 (SC) | SC seized of issue whether limitation under Sec. 73 can be extended via Sec. 168A notifications. | Notice issued, matter sub-judice. |
| Various Petitioners v. State/Union | Allahabad HC, Patna HC, Guwahati HC, Telangana HC | Conflicting rulings – Allahabad upheld Notif. 9; Patna upheld Notif. 56; Guwahati quashed Notif. 56; Telangana raised doubts. | Conflicting – final say pending in SC. |
| Punjab & Haryana HC Batch Petitions | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Declined to rule independently; disposed of petitions subject to SC outcome. | Bound to SC final ruling. |
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.”
