A show cause notice and an adjudication order under GST must contain reasons; a vague notice or an order without reasoning is unsustainable and will be set aside with a remand for fresh hearing.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by M/s RBC Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Director- Mr. Rajiv Gupta, inter alia challenging the impugned order dated 30th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by Sales Tax Officer, Class II/ AVATO, Ward 8, Zone 2, Delhi for the financial year 2019-20. Vide the impugned order, a total demand of Rs.1,09,404/- has been raised against the Petitioner with tax, interest and penalty to the tune of Rs.44,114.00/-, Rs.35,290.00/- and Rs.30,000.00/- respectively.

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications:

● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023;

● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023;

● Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023; and

● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024

4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India &Ors was the lead matter 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 for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the G