GST Notifications Challenge Deferred to SC; Petitioner Directed to File Appeal

Case Title: Vijay and Company through Proprietor Mrs. Seema Tayal v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 8227/2024, CM Appl. 33852/2024
Date of Judgement: 23rd April, 2025 (corrected & released 28th April, 2025)
Relevant Sections: Section 73, Section 107, Section 168A of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017
Category: Validity of Notifications / Principles of Natural Justice / Adjudication Proceedings

Facts of the Case (Ref. ¶2, ¶3, ¶6–7)

• The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 05.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act raising demand of ₹35,03,595/-.

• The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 09/2023-CT (31.03.2023) and Notification No. 56/2023-CT (28.12.2023) issued under Section 168A extending limitation for adjudication.

• Petitioner argued that the order was non-speaking and passed without due opportunity, violating natural justice.

• However, the record (DRC-06 forms) showed that sufficient opportunities were granted, but petitioner failed to reply.

Questions in Consideration (Ref. ¶4, ¶5, ¶6–7)

1. Whether the impugned notifications issued under Section 168A were valid, given conflicting High Court rulings and the pending SLP before the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the impugned adjudication order deserved to be set aside on grounds of violation of natural justice.

3. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to pursue statutory appellate remedy despite limitation.

Observations of the Court (Ref. ¶4–¶11)

• Multiple High Courts (Allahabad, Patna, Guwahati, Telangana, Punjab & Haryana, Bombay) have given differing views on these notifications. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. AC, State Tax & Ors.).

• The Delhi HC refrained from deciding the validity of notifications, leaving the issue open for SC’s determination (¶5).

• On facts, the Court found that adequate opportunity was provided, and the order was not ex parte; hence, natural justice plea was rejected (¶7).

Judgement of the Court (Ref. ¶8–¶11)

• The petition was disposed of without setting aside the adjudication order.

• The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal within 30 days along with pre-deposit under Section 107 CGST Act.

• Such appeal shall not be dismissed on limitation and will be decided on merits.

• Validity of Notifications 09/2023 & 56/2023 remains subject to Supreme Court’s decision.

Between Fine Lines (5-Line Simplification)

• Petitioner’s challenge to GST limitation extension notifications kept pending for SC’s decision.

• Delhi HC held that natural justice was not violated since opportunities to reply were given.

• Demand order of ₹35 lakh was not quashed.

• Petitioner directed to avail appellate remedy under Section 107 CGST Act.

• Appeal to be entertained on merits if filed within 30 days with pre-deposit.

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.”