Case Title: Gardgil Vohra Ventures Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO Ward 101 & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 5431/2025 & CM APPL. 24753/2025
Date of Judgment: 28.04.2025
Category of Dispute: Input Tax Credit (ITC) – Validity of SCN & Opportunity of Hearing
Relevant Sections: Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 73 & 168A of CGST Act, 2017, and corresponding SGST provisions.
Facts of the Case
-
A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 23.05.2024 was issued alleging wrongful availment of ITC due to differences in GST returns (Para 3).
-
The Petitioner missed filing a reply to the SCN as it claimed not to have received it (Para 4).
-
An impugned order dated 09.08.2024 was passed without affording opportunity of hearing (Para 8).
-
The petition also challenged Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax (28.12.2023) and Notification No. 56/2023 – State Tax (11.07.2024), alleging lack of GST Council recommendation under Section 168A (Para 5).
Question(s) in Consideration
-
Whether the impugned order dated 09.08.2024 could stand when the Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing? (Para 8).
-
Whether the challenge to Notification Nos. 56/2023 (Central & State) should be considered by the Court when the issue is already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP 4240/2025? (Para 7).
Observations of the Court
-
Various High Courts have taken divergent views on the validity of Notification No. 56/2023; matter is pending before Supreme Court (Para 6–7).
-
Since adjudication order was passed without giving Petitioner a chance to reply or personal hearing, principles of natural justice were violated (Para 8–10).
-
The Court noted that the SCN and impugned order were non-speaking and thus unsustainable (Para 10).
Judgment of the Court
-
The impugned order dated 09.08.2024 was set aside (Para 11).
-
Petitioner granted 30 days’ time to file reply to SCN (Para 11).
-
Adjudicating Authority directed to provide personal hearing and pass a fresh reasoned order after considering Petitioner’s submissions (Para 12).
-
Challenge to Notifications will be subject to the outcome of Supreme Court’s decision in SLP 4240/2025 (Para 12).
-
Petition disposed accordingly (Para 13).
Between Fine Lines
-
The Delhi High Court protected taxpayer’s right to be heard before demand finalization.
-
Ex-parte orders without hearing are not sustainable.
-
Petitioner gets 30 more days to defend SCN on ITC dispute.
-
Fresh hearing must be held by the adjudicating authority.
-
Validity of Notification No. 56/2023 will depend on Supreme Court’s final ruling.
Summary of Referred Cases
| Case Name | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| DJST Traders Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) 16499/2023 (Delhi HC) | Lead matter challenging Notifications 9 & 56/2023 under Section 168A. | Pending; interim protection; referred to SC. |
| M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. ACST & Ors. | SLP 4240/2025 (SC) | Challenge to validity of Notification 56/2023 (Central Tax). | SC seized; notices issued, pending final decision. |
| Allahabad HC (Notification 9/2023) | — | Upheld validity of Notification 9/2023. | Notification sustained. |
| Patna HC (Notification 56/2023) | — | Upheld validity of Notification 56/2023. | Notification sustained. |
| Guwahati HC (Notification 56/2023) | — | Held Notification 56/2023 invalid. | Notification quashed. |
| Telangana HC | — | Did not decide vires but observed invalidity of Notification 56/2023. | Matter escalated to SC. |
| Punjab & Haryana HC | Order dated 12.03.2025 | Refrained from deciding on validity; directed matters to follow SC’s outcome. | Interim orders to continue until 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.”
