Case Summary
Case Title: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. & Passavant Energy and Environment GMBH JV v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 12977/2024 & CM APPL. 54095/2024
Date of Judgment: 3rd July 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 142 (DRC-07 reference)
Category of Dispute: Demand of Tax / Input Tax Credit / Procedural Validity of Notifications
Facts (Paras 2–7)
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice dated 4th December 2023 for FY 2018–19 and the consequential adjudication order dated 29th April 2024. Additionally, the vires of Notifications 56/2023-CT and 9/2023-CT were assailed, which extend limitation under Section 168A. The challenge was connected with multiple writ petitions across High Courts and pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax).
On facts, the SCN alleged two grounds: (i) non-reconciliation between GSTR-01 and GSTR-09, and (ii) ITC claimed from dealers who were return defaulters or non-payers. Demand raised was Rs. 55.38 lakhs on reconciliation and Rs. 61.83 lakhs on ITC, aggregating to Rs. 2.38 crores in the impugned order. The petitioner’s rectification application was dismissed without granting a hearing on 30th July 2024.
Observations (Paras 4–10)
The Court noted that the larger constitutional challenge to Notifications 9/2023-CT and 56/2023-CT is pending before the Supreme Court, and several High Courts have already deferred to that outcome. However, the Court found that, in the petitioner’s case, the adjudicating authority wrongly proceeded on the assumption that GSTR-01 was not filed. The record itself (attachment to DRC-07) showed the availability of GSTR-01. This indicated a procedural lapse in denial of rectification.
Judgment (Paras 8–13)
The Delhi High Court set aside the order dismissing rectification without hearing and restored the rectification application to its original number. The authority was directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the petitioner and decide the application on merits, without granting adjournments. All other rights and remedies were kept open. The writ petition was disposed accordingly, while the broader issue of notification validity was left to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case | Court | Issue | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (WP(C) 16499/2023) | Delhi HC | Validity of Notifications 9/2023 & 56/2023 | Heard in part; referred issue to SC |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Asst. Commissioner (SLP 4240/2025) | Supreme Court | Challenge to extension of time under Sec. 168A | Pending adjudication |
| Allahabad HC (Notification 9/2023) | Allahabad HC | Extension under Notification 9/2023 | Upheld validity |
| Patna HC (Notification 56/2023) | Patna HC | Extension under Notification 56/2023 | Upheld validity |
| Guwahati HC (Notification 56/2023) | Guwahati HC | Extension under Notification 56/2023 | Quashed notification |
| Telangana HC | Telangana HC | Validity of Notification 56/2023 | Held invalid; pending before SC |
| Punjab & Haryana HC (March 2025 batch) | Punjab & Haryana HC | Multiple writs on extension notifications | Deferred to SC outcome, interim reliefs to continue |
Between Fine Lines
For taxpayers, this ruling reinforces that authorities cannot dismiss rectification applications mechanically without granting hearings, especially when relevant records are already on file. Procedural lapses like ignoring available GSTR data can render demands unsustainable. Until the Supreme Court settles the validity of extension notifications, taxpayers can still secure relief on procedural fairness grounds.
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.”