The court ruled that procedural fairness is essential in tax assessments, emphasizing the need for proper notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before decisions are finalized.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Ekam Chemicals (through its proprietor Sh. Arvinder Singh Kathuria) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging -

(i) the order dated 23^rd April, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’ passed in respect of F.Y. 2018-19 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.

(ii) the Show Cause Notice dated 9^th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘SCN’).

3. Further, the petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, Notification No. 9/2023-State Taxdated 22nd June, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2023.(hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).

4. 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 titled ‘ DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. ’ Inthe said batch of petitions, on 22nd April 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification 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 ofthe 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