Case Title: DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 16499/2023 & CM APPL. 66474/2023
Category of Dispute: Challenge to Notification & Adjudication of Show Cause Notice
Date of Judgment: 23.04.2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of CGST/ DGST Act, 2017
Facts of the Case (¶2, ¶6–9):
-
The petitioner, DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd., challenged a Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act.
-
The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 on grounds of lack of proper GST Council recommendation.
-
Initially, the Court (order dated 28.12.2023) allowed adjudication to proceed but directed that any adverse order shall not be implemented.
-
The Department passed an order on 31.12.2023 during pendency of the petition, even though the petitioner had filed only a skeletal reply (08.10.2023) without supporting documents.
Question(s) in Consideration (¶4–6, ¶10):
-
Whether the impugned Notification No. 9/2023 and related extensions under Section 168A were validly issued.
-
Whether the adjudication order dated 31.12.2023, passed despite incomplete reply and pending writ, should stand.
-
Whether the petitioner should be granted fresh opportunity to file a complete reply and avail personal hearing.
Observations of the Court (¶4–11):
-
Multiple High Courts have taken divergent views on Notifications No. 9/2023 & 56/2023, and the issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax).
-
Until SC decides, the petitioner’s challenge to Notification No. 9/2023 will abide by the outcome of that SLP.
-
The order dated 31.12.2023 was “sketchy” and passed without proper consideration of documents and hearing.
-
Principles of natural justice require that the petitioner be given 30 days to file a fresh reply with documents and a personal hearing thereafter.
Judgment of the Court (¶9–13):
-
The adjudication order dated 31.12.2023 is set aside.
-
Petitioner directed to file a fresh reply with supporting documents within 30 days.
-
Adjudicating authority to grant personal hearing (via email/phone communication) and pass a fresh reasoned order.
-
Challenge to impugned Notification will be subject to final outcome of pending Supreme Court decision.
-
Writ petition disposed of in above terms.
Between Fine Lines (Simplified Outcome in 5 lines):
-
The Delhi High Court set aside the ex-parte order passed against DJST Traders.
-
The petitioner is allowed to file a detailed reply with documents within 30 days.
-
A fresh hearing must be given, ensuring principles of natural justice.
-
The validity of Notification No. 9/2023 remains undecided and awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling.
-
The case emphasizes that procedural fairness in GST adjudication cannot be bypassed.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allahabad HC on Notification No. 9/2023 | Not specified | Examined validity of Notification No. 9/2023 under Section 168A | Upheld validity |
| Patna HC on Notification No. 56/2023 | Not specified | Considered extension of limitation under Section 168A | Upheld validity |
| Gauhati HC on Notification No. 56/2023 | Not specified | Examined legality of extension | Quashed Notification No. 56/2023 |
| Telangana HC (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax) | SLP No. 4240/2025 pending before SC | Observed invalidity concerns of Notification 56/2023 | Under consideration by SC |
| Punjab & Haryana HC batch matters | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Held that issues pending before SC, interim orders to continue | Deferred to SC decision |
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.”
