M/S Perfect Industries Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

M/S Perfect Industries Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 20.04.2024 set aside (para 83). Petitioner granted time till 15th December, 2025 to file reply to the impugned SCN; upon filing, the Adjudicating Authority to issue a personal hearing notice communicated to email ID [email protected] and mobile 9811118257 (paras 83-85); the reply and hearing submissions to be duly considered and a fresh reasoned order on the SCN passed (para 86). GST Portal access to be provided within one week for uploading the reply and accessing notices/documents; validity-of-notifications issue left open, any adjudication order subject to S.L.P No 4240/2025 (SC) and W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (paras 87). Petition and pending applications disposed of (para 92).

Issue for consideration

Validity/vires of the impugned notifications — Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax (31.03.2023), Notification No.09/2023-State Tax (22.06.2023), Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax (28.12.2023) and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax (11.07.2024) — issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168A CGST Act 2017; this Court expressly leaves the question open, subject to the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P No 4240/2025 and this Court's decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The question of the validity of the impugned notifications is expressly left open; any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P No 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV) and this Court's decision in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (Engineers India Limited); all rights and remedies of the parties are left open.

Ratio / Principle

Although GST portal changes after 16th January, 2024 made the 'Additional Notices Tab' visible, the SCN dated 28.12.2023 predates this and did not come to the petitioner's notice; the petitioner having obtained no proper opportunity to be heard and having filed no reply to the SCN, the matter deserved remand to the concerned Adjudicating Authority, and the impugned order was set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.; decision 10.11.2025) disposed of W.P.(C) 15975/2025, M/s Perfect Industries v. Goods and Service Tax Officer, Ward-63, DGST & Anr. The petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenged (i) the adjudication order dated 20.04.2024 of the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi, arising from a SCN dated 28.12.2023 (reminder 17.03.2024) uploaded only on the GST portal 'Additional Notices Tab' and unseen by the petitioner, and (ii) the vires of Notifications 09/2023-Central Tax (31.03.2023), 09/2023-State Tax (22.06.2023), 56/2023-Central Tax (28.12.2023) and 56/2023-State Tax (11.07.2024) issued in purported exercise of Section 168A CGST Act 2017 power. Contextualised within a batch led by DJST Traders (W.P.(C) 16499/2023), noting divergent High Court views (Allahabad upheld Notification 9; Patna upheld Notification 56; Guwahati quashed Notification 56/2023-CT; Telangana observations under SC review in S.L.P No 4240/2025; P&H deference order of 12.03.2025), the Court relied on its own decision in Neelgiri Machinery (W.P.(C) 13727/2024) and, finding the petitioner had no fair opportunity (portal visibility of the tab fixed only after 16.01.2024, while the SCN of 28.12.2023 went unnoticed), set aside the impugned order and remanded: reply due by 15.12.2025; personal-hearing notice to the advocate's email/mobile; fresh reasoned order to follow; GST portal access within one week. The notification-validity challenge was left open, subject to the Supreme Court's decision in S.L.P No 4240/2025 and this Court's W.P.(C) 9214/2024 (Engineers India Limited), lead matter of the retained State-notification batch.

$~44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 10^th November, 2025

- W.P.(C) 15975/2025 & CM APPL. 65379/2025 M/S PERFECT INDUSTRIES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshay Allagh, Adv.

versus

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER , WARD - 63, DGST AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD.

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The Petitioner- M/s Perfect Industrieshas filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , challenging the impugned order dated20^th April, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi( hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ ). The present petition also challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 28^th December, 2023passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi. ( hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN ’).

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

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

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

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

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

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

(hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).

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 22^nd 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

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 10

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 15975/2025 GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

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-MEILAAG 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 GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

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.”

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.

Signature Not Verified

Page 4 of 10

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 15975/2025 GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

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.

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.”

The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding

Signature Not Verified

Page 5 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

the matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending upon the fact situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.

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., 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.

However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, some of the cases 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.

In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that the impugned SCN dated 28th December, 2023 from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Thus, the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner, due to which no reply was filed. Further, a reminder is also stated to have been issued to the Petitioner on 17th March, 2024. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 20^th April, 2024. It is submitted that the same was also uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’. Hence, the impugned order was not brought to the knowledge of the Petitioner, and was passed without providing the Petitioner with an opportunity to challenge the case on merits.

The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled ‘Neelgiri Machinery through its Proprietor Mr. Anil

Signature Not Verified

Page 6 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

Kumar V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’ , under similar circumstances where the SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ had remanded the matter in the following terms:

“6. Be that as it may, intention is to ensure that the Petitioner is given an opportunity to file its reply and is heard on merits and that orders are not passed in default. Since there is no clarity on behalf of the Department, this Court follows the order dated 9th September, 2024 in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1 as also order dated 23rd December, 2024 in Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 &Anr (W.P.(C) 17867/2024; DHC) where the Court under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:

“4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity to respond to the same. For the same reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.

5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned. 6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice,fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108DB.

Signature Not Verified

Page 7 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’. 8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. 10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 11. All pending applications are also disposed of.”

7. The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are accordingly set aside. In response to show cause notices dated 04th December, 2023 and 23th September, 2023, the Petitioner shall file its replies within thirty days. The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.

8. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”

There is no doubt that after 16th January, 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘ Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 28^th December, 2023 and the same does not appear to have come to the notice of the

Signature Not Verified

Page 8 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

Petitioner. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 15th December, 2025,to file the reply to impugned SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:

Email ID: [email protected]

Mobile: 9811118257

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 fresh reasoned order with respect to the impugned SCN shall be passed accordingly.

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 this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors. 14. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided within one week, to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents.

Signature Not Verified

Page 9 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE

NOVEMBER 10, 2025 /kp/sm

Signature Not Verified

Page 10 of 10

W.P.(C) 15975/2025

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 17:55:56

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Adjudication order dated 20.04.2024 passed pursuant to the SCN dated 28.12.2023; per submissions adopted by the Court, it was uploaded only on the GST portal 'Additional Notices Tab', never came to the petitioner's notice, and was passed without an opportunity to contest the case on merits.¶10
Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi · 20th April, 2024
Prior proceeding
The petition additionally challenges the Show Cause Notice ('impugned SCN') dated 28.12.2023 issued by the same officer (Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 63, Zone 6, Delhi).¶10
Prior proceeding
Service-failure timeline: impugned SCN uploaded on the 'Additional Notices Tab' and not brought to petitioner's knowledge; reminder stated to have been issued on 17.03.2024; impugned order passed on 20.04.2024, also stated to have been uploaded on that tab; consequently no reply was filed.¶59
Prior proceeding
Case belongs to a batch led by W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 (DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.). On 22.04.2025 parties were heard at length on the validity of the notifications; the Court recorded six categories of pending cases with proposed reliefs and asked parties for instructions by 23.04.2025. The recorded challenge turned on the Section 168A recommendation/ratification sequence and on limitation expiring relative to Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).¶21
Prior proceeding
Divergent views among High Courts: Allahabad HC upheld Notification no.9; Patna HC upheld Notification no.56; Guwahati HC quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax); challenges were also pending before the Bombay HC and the Punjab & Haryana HC.¶48
Prior proceeding
The Telangana HC, without delving into vires, made observations on the invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax); that judgment is under Supreme Court consideration in S.L.P No 4240/2025. The SC, by order dated 21.02.2025, noted the cleavage of opinion among High Courts and issued notice on the SLP and interim relief, returnable on 07.03.2025.¶28
Prior proceeding
The Punjab & Haryana HC, by order dated 12.03.2025, disposed of all its writ petitions in terms of the interim orders, deferring to the pending Supreme Court adjudication (SLP-4240-2025); the interim orders there continue to operate, governed by the SC's final decision.¶40
Prior proceeding
The abovementioned writ petition and other batch petitions were disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates — either remanding the matters or relegating parties to appellate remedies, depending on the fact situation — all such orders being subject to further orders of the Supreme Court.¶56