SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, SHAIL JAIN, JJ.
Ms Trehan International Consultants And Engineers Pvt Ltd - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13667 of 2025
Decided on : 04-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Appearance not given.

Notifications extending deadlines under GST must follow procedures set by the GST Act, particularly Section 168A, or face legal challenges.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Challenge to Show Cause Notice and associated order under the GST regime - The petitioner contended that the SCN was not brought to its knowledge, leading to inability to file a reply; thus, the matter was remanded for proper opportunity to be heard. (Paras 3, 9, 10, and 11)

(B) Notifications - Validity and procedure - The court discussed the necessity of prior recommendation from the GST Council before the issuance of notifications per Section 168A of the GST Act, impacting the legality of notifications concerning deadline extensions. (Para 4)

(C) Judicial Discipline - The court maintained that pending issues regarding the validity of notifications shall depend on the Supreme Court's decision, ensuring interim orders continue until determination. (Para 7)

Table of Content
1. challenging show cause notice and notifications (Para 3 , 4)
2. validity of notifications under judicial scrutiny (Para 5 , 6)
3. fair opportunity to respond to scn (Para 8 , 9)
4. remand for fair hearing and future rights open (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. final disposal of writ petition (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 56056/2025

2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 13667/2025

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 6th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) as also the consequent order dated 12th April, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) for the financial year 2018-19.

4. Further, the petition also challenges Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).

5. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titledDJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:

“4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).

6. The Telangana High Court while not delving into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:

“1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.

2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top