Disposed

M/S. Trans India Logistics v. Gsto, WARD-60 & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/11652/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST demand order passed without hearing after SCN went to junk mail and wrong annexure was uploaded. Delhi High Court set aside the impugned order, allowed reply to SCN till 30 September 2025, directed personal hearing, portal access, and fresh reasoned order subject to pending Supreme Court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned adjudication order set aside; liberty to reply to SCN by 30.09.2025; personal hearing and fresh order directed; notification validity left open.

M/S. Trans India Logistics Vs Gsto, WARD-60 & Anr. — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 5^th August 2025

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11652/2025 & CM APPL. 47658/2025

¶4

M/S. TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Akshay Allagh and Mr. Davinder Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

GSTO, WARD-60 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶10

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Sharpline Broadcast Limited under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 7th August, 2024 passed in respect of F.Y. 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

¶13

Vide the impugned order, the following demand has been raised on the Petitioner:

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶18

Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 09/2023 – Central Tax dated 31^st March, 2023 and Notification No. 09/2023 – State Tax dated 22^nd June, 2023, Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28^th December 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 – State Tax dated 11^th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’)

¶19

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.’ . In the said batch of petitions, on 22^nd April 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:

¶20

“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).

¶21

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶24

Page 2 of 7

¶25

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶26

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).

¶27

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 HCCSEW-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:

¶28

“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.

¶29

2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.

¶30

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").

¶31

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶32

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.

¶33

6. There are many other issues also arising for

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶36

Page 3 of 7

¶37

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶38

consideration in this matter.

¶39

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 7-32025.”

¶40

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:

¶41

“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 SLP4240-2025.

¶42

68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any.”

¶43

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶46

Page 4 of 7

¶47

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶48

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.

¶49

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.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.”

¶52

Thereafter, on 23^rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶57

validity of the impugned notification therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings 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.

¶58

However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘ Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’ .

¶59

In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21st May, 2024. However, the Petitioner did not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order was passed on 7th August, 2024. The reason for not filing the reply, as provided by the Petitioner is that the SCN went unnoticed by the Petitioner as the auto alert mail system landed in the junk email inbox of the registered email of the Petitioner.

¶60

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that there is no annexure to the DRC-07 attached with the impugned order and a wrong annexure relating to a third party being the ‘Transpacific Freight Services Pvt. Ltd.’ has been uploaded instead. Hence, the impugned order is cryptic, unreasoned and nonspeaking in nature.

¶61

This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits. Moreover, there appears to be some error by the Department in properly uploading the documents with the SCN as well.

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

W.P.(C) 11652/2025

¶64

Page 6 of 7

¶65

Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 1.08.2025 16:58:39

¶66

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 30^th September, 2025 to file a reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:

¶67

Email address :[email protected]

¶68

Mobile no: 9811118257

¶69

The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and a fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly. The GST Portal shall be made accessible to the Petitioner within one week, for ensuring filing of reply and for access to other necessary documents.

¶70

However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority 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. and of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘ Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’ .

¶71