A writ petition by an unregistered partnership firm is maintainable for enforcing statutory rights when filed through a partner. Further, an adjudication order passed ex-parte due to non-receipt of notice via an inaccessible digital portal interface violates principles of natural justice and requires a remand.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 62792/2025

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

W.P.(C) 15329/2025 & CM APPL. 62791/2025

3. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 16th December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 113(Special Zone), Zone 12, Delhi (hereinafter ‘impugned order’). The present petition also challenges the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21st September, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) issued for the financial year 2017-18. Vide the impugned order the tax demand raised against the Petitioner is Rs.55,626/- and the total demand including interest and penalty is Rs.1,31,252/-.

4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications:

● Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023;

● Notification No. 09/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).

5. 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