Full Judgment Text
$~89
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision : 24 September, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 14406/2025 & CM APPL. 59102/2025
TAHILIANI DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Mittal, Mr. SuprateekNeogi
& Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advs
versus
JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX APPEALS II,
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the
th
impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 14 May, 2025 (hereinafter “ impugned
OIA ”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services
Tax, Vasant Kunj Division, New Delhi. The present petition also challenges
the impugned Order-in-Original dated 23rd August, 2024 (hereinafter
“ impugned OIO ”) issued for the Financial Year 2019-2020.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification No.
56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter “ the
impugned notification ”).
4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions
wherein, inter alia , the impugned notification was challenged. W.P.(C) No.
16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
nd
was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22 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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
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 GST
Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for
financial year 2019-2020 could have been
extended by issuing the Notifications in
question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.
6. There are many other issues also arising
for consideration in this matter.
7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a
cleavage of opinion amongst different High
Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the
SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief,
returnable on 7-3-2025.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending
before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High
Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ
petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim
orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said
order reads as under:
“65. Almost all the issues, which have been
raised before us in these present connected
cases and have been noticed hereinabove, are
the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforesaid SLP.
66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we
refrain from giving our opinion with respect
to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well
as the notifications issued in purported
exercise of power under Section 168-A of the
Act which have been challenged, and we
direct that all these present connected cases
shall be governed by the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision
thereto shall be binding on these cases too.
67. Since the matter is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order
passed in the present cases, would continue to
operate and would be governed by the final
adjudication by the Supreme Court on the
issues in the aforesaid SLP-4240-2025.
68. In view of the aforesaid, all these
connected cases are disposed of accordingly
along with pending applications, if any.”
8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties
for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above
would show that various High Courts have taken a view
and the matter is squarely now pending before the
Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications
itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are
upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as
the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to
several reasons and were unable to avail of personal
hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases
the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge
demands have been raised and even penalties have been
imposed.
10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which
are pending before this Court. While the issue
concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is
presently under consideration before the Supreme
Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that,
depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can
be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to
place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In
some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies
may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners,
without delving into the question of the validity of the
said notifications at this stage.
11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have
been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek
instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April,
2025.”
5. The above mentioned writ petition and various other writ petitions
have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding
the matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies,
depending upon the factual situation.
6. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025 as well,
since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under
consideration before 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.,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
the challenge made by the Petitioner to the impugned notification in the
present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of
the Supreme Court.
7. Coming to the facts of this case, the Petitioner has challenged the
impugned OIA on two main grounds, which are as under:
(a) Firstly, the impugned OIA was passed on 14th May, 2025 but the
notice of personal hearing was issued on 10th June, 2025 for a hearing on
11th June, 2025. By that time, the impugned OIA had already been passed.
The said notice of personal hearing gives reference to personal hearings that
were given even earlier on 19th December, 2024, 9th January, 2025 and
10th February, 2025 but none had appeared. The remarks in the said
personal hearing notice are interesting as it seeks to suggest that a fresh
personal hearing notice is being issued due to a ‘ SYSTEM REQUIREMENT’ .
The extract of the said notice is set out below:
(b) Secondly, the demand has been raised on the premise that there is a
difference between the output sales and the inputs to the tune of about Rs.
9.16 crores, which is treated as a value addition on which tax of Rs. 1.10
crores must be paid in cash.
8. Considering the above submissions, the Court had issued notice on
the last date i.e., 17th September, 2025 and directed Ms. AnushreeNarain,
ld. SCC to seek instructions in respect of both the said grounds.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
9. Ms. Narain, ld. SSC for the Respondent today submits upon
instructions that the notices for personal hearing were issued to the
Petitioner prior to issuance of the impugned OIA. However, since the said
notices had not been uploaded on the portal, at the time of uploading of the
impugned OIA, the system generated a further personal hearing notice
which led to this glitch of a personal hearing being fixed after the date of the
order. This was merely a technical glitch and nothing more. Actual
compliance of natural justice was already taken care of by the Respondent
Department. In support of the above, the ld. SSC has handed across a copy
of the three personal hearing notices fixing the date for hearing the
Petitioner on 19th December, 2024, 9th January, 2025 and 10th February,
2025. The same are taken on record.
10. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. It is noted that the Petitioner in fact
did not appear either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the
Appellate Authority. It appears that the Petitioner is merely seeking to take
advantage of the technical glitch due to which the notice was generated for a
fresh hearing after passing of the impugned OIA. This Court is of the view
that the Respondent Department cannot be blamed for this situation when
compliance with the principles of natural justice was satisfied. Further, the
Petitioner itself chose not to appear on any of the said dates.
11. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.
However, wherever the impugned notifications have been challenged, the
Court has been remanding the said matters, as the adjudication of the
legality of the Notifications is still pending, based upon whether the
Petitioners have got an opportunity of hearing or not.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51
12. Considering the fact that the Petitioner in the present case did not
avail of the opportunity of personal hearing, as also the fact that the though
the notices were served on the Petitioner the same were not uploaded on the
portal, the Court is of the view that the Petitioner ought be heard by the
Appellate Authority afresh.
13. Accordingly, the impugned OIA is set aside.The Petitioner is
permitted to appear before the Appellate Authority. It is also permitted to
file any documents/affidavits and make submissions. Notice of personal
hearing shall be granted to the Petitioner on the following email address and
mobile number:-
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate (M)- 9971933199
Email: rajat@msslawchambers.in
14. After hearing the Petitioner, the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits
and a reasoned order shall be passed. The said order shall be subject to the
outcome of the decision of 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., where the challenge to the impugned notification is pending.
15. The present petition along with the pending applications stand
disposed ofin the above terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 24, 2025/ sk/msh
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 14406/2025 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:SUNITA
KUMARI
Signing Date:26.09.2025
18:16:51