Adit Buildwell Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, South Commissionerate New Delhi & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 29.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010085442024
+ W.P.(C) 2728/2024 & CM APPL. 11120/2024
ADIT BUILDWELL PVT. LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai & Ms. Srishti
Sharma, Advs.
versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE
TAX, SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE NEW DELHI
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated
24.11.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service
Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was registered dealer with
the Service Tax Department. A show cause notice (for short ‘SCN’)
was issued to the petitioner. The reply to the SCN was filed on
23.05.2022. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of personal
hearing on 07.11.2023. The matter was adjourned to 15.11.2023 at
request of the petitioner. On 15.11.2023, the petitioner sought further
time till 24.11.2023 to produce the requisite documents. The request
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
14:40:16
W.P.(C) 2728/2024 Page 1 of 4

was not considered and impugned order was passed on 24.11.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reasonable
opportunity to defend the case was not granted. Vide email dated
15.11.2023 the petitioner sought a further period of ten days but
without considering the request the impugned order was passed.
4. Per contra the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to
defend the case. The opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to
the petitioner on 07.11.2023 and time till 15.11.2023 was granted to
place on record the additional material but no attempt was made to file
additional material. No document was filed till 23.11.2023 and only
then the impugned order was passed on 24.11.2023.
5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that after
waiting for nine days the impugned order was passed lacks merit.
Once the request for further time was not considered then there was no
occasion for the petitioner to file the additional documents and even
otherwise the impugned order was passed on 24.11.2023 whereas the
time sought was till 24.11.2023.
7. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, however, the
self-imposed restrictions of not interfering in the writ jurisdiction and
relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy is subject to the
exceptions carved out in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade
Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 . The relevant paragraph is as under: -
“ 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
14:40:16
W.P.(C) 2728/2024 Page 2 of 4

But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions one of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not
normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative
remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to
operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been
a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the
order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or
the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of
case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of
forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions
of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they
still hold the field.”
8. In the case in hand a reasonable opportunity to defend the case
was not granted to the petitioner. The request made for producing the
additional material by 24.11.2023 was neither considered nor rejected.
It would be relevant to quote paragraph no.5.6 of the counter filed by
the respondent:-
“5.6 That the Respondent authorities, trusting the bona
fides of the Petitioner, granted the Petitioner an
opportunity to place additional material on record and/or
make additional submissions, as had been sought by the
Petitioner, and allowed the Petitioner time till 15.11.2023
for such purpose. However, it is pertinent to note that no
such additional material and/or additional submissions
were made by the Petitioner, even though the Respondent
authorities waited for an additional period of 9 days
subsequent to the aforementioned date of 15.11.2023,
before passing the Impugned Order on 24.11.2023.”

9. It is the admitted case of the department that an additional time
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
14:40:16
W.P.(C) 2728/2024 Page 3 of 4

till 15.11.2023 was granted to place the additional material on record
and to make further submissions. From perusal of the impugned order,
it is evident that the request by email of the petitioner seeking
extension of time till 24.11.2023 was not even noted. One of the
grounds for passing the impugned order was failure of the petitioner to
produce the relevant documents. The minimum that was expected
from a quasi-judicial authority was at least to deal with the request for
grant of further time and thereafter take an appropriate decision
thereon.
10. The impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice
and is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.1 to
decide afresh from the stage at which the proceedings stood on
15.11.2023.
11. In order to avoid any further complication, let the petitioner or
its authorised representative appear in the office of the respondent
no.1 on 02.12.2026 at 11.00 a.m. Needless to say the respondent no.1
shall proceed in accordance with law.
12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Pending application is also disposed of.



AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

AMIT SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
Ch Reportable: Yes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:30.10.2026
14:40:16
W.P.(C) 2728/2024 Page 4 of 4