Case Summary
Case Title: Anju Tuteja Prop Cyklon v. Commissioner of State Goods and Service Tax Delhi & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 6390/2025 & CM APPL. 29189/2025
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2025
Category of Dispute: Validity of SCN and Notification – Opportunity of hearing, limitation, vires of Notification
Relevant Sections: Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, Section 73 & Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017
Facts (Paras 3–8)
The petitioner challenged the Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024 and the consequent order dated 10.08.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the SCN was issued belatedly relying on Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, which was alleged to be ultra vires Section 168A of the CGST Act. The validity of this notification was already under consideration in various High Courts and before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025). Despite these pending challenges, the adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order noting that no reply or clarification was filed by the petitioner.
Questions before the Court (Paras 6–12)
-
Whether the SCN and order issued on the basis of Notification 56/2023 were sustainable?
-
Whether the ex parte order passed without reply from the petitioner violated natural justice?
-
Whether the Delhi High Court should decide the vires of the notification when the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court?
Observations (Paras 6–12)
The Court observed that several High Courts had taken divergent views on the validity of Notification 56/2023. The Supreme Court was already seized of the matter. Following judicial propriety, the Delhi High Court refrained from deciding the vires. However, it noted that the petitioner had not been afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, as no reply to the SCN was considered and adjudication was carried out ex parte. Such an order, raising huge tax demands and penalties, could not be sustained.
Judgment (Paras 9–14)
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2024. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority with directions to grant the petitioner time till 10.07.2025 to file a reply to the SCN. The adjudicating authority must thereafter issue a notice for personal hearing and pass a fresh order considering the reply and submissions. The Court clarified that the validity of Notification 56/2023 would remain open and subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025. Access to the GST portal was also directed to be restored for filing the reply.
Table of Earlier Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 16499/2023) | Delhi HC | Challenge to Notification 56/2023 under Section 168A | Hearing held; matter linked to SC |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner of State Tax (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | Validity of Notification 9 & 56/2023 under Section 168A | Pending consideration |
| Patna HC ruling | Patna HC | Validity of Notification 56/2023 | Upheld |
| Guwahati HC ruling | Guwahati HC | Validity of Notification 56/2023 | Quashed |
| Allahabad HC ruling | Allahabad HC | Validity of Notification 9/2023 | Upheld |
| Telangana HC ruling | Telangana HC | Notification 56/2023 | Observed invalidity; matter escalated to SC |
| Punjab & Haryana HC ruling (12.03.2025) | Punjab & Haryana HC | Connected petitions on Notification 56/2023 | Disposed of, subject to SC outcome |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reiterates that even if substantive issues like validity of a notification are pending before higher courts, adjudication cannot proceed without affording taxpayers a fair opportunity of reply and hearing. For trade, it underscores the importance of actively responding to SCNs, but also gives relief that ex parte orders passed without considering replies are unsustainable. Businesses should use this precedent to seek remand where demands are raised without proper hearing.
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.”
