Disposed

Super Skin Craft Private Limited through Its Director v. Government of NCT of Delhi through the GST Officer & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/17123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST demands for FYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 were raised ex parte after SCNs went unnoticed on the portal's Additional Notices tab. The Delhi High Court set aside all three orders subject to costs, remanded for fresh replies and personal hearings, and left the notifications' validity open pending Supreme Court decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside subject to costs; replies to SCNs permitted till 15.12.2025 with personal hearing and fresh adjudication.

Super Skin Craft Private Limited through Its Director Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~80, 82 & 84

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 12^th November 2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 & CM APPL. 70371/2025 SUPER SKIN CRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kaushik, Adv. (9990831316) versus

¶5

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE GST OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. (9911211000)

¶6

~82 + W.P.(C) 17123/2025 & CM APPL. 70428/2025

¶7

SUPER SKIN CRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kaushik, Adv. versus

¶8

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE GST OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs

¶9

~84 + W.P.(C) 17138/2025 & CM APPL. 70474/2025

¶10

SUPER SKIN CRAFT PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kaushik, Adv. versus

¶11

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE GST OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs.

¶12

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶13

Page 1 of 12

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶16

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

¶19

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶20

CM APPL. 70372/2025 in W.P.(C) 17107/2025 CM APPL. 70429/2025 in W.P.(C) 17123/2025 CM APPL. 70475/2025 in W.P.(C) 17138/2025

¶21

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

¶22

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 & CM APPL. 70371/2025 W.P.(C) 17123/2025 & CM APPL. 70428/2025 W.P.(C) 17138/2025 & CM APPL. 70474/2025

¶23

These are three petitions filed by the Petitioner- M/s Super Skin Craft Private Limited through its Director, seeking the quashing of the following impugned orders:

¶24

(i) In W.P.(C) 17107/2025 order dated 15^th March, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO Ward 92, Zone-8, Delhi for the Financial Year 2018-19 as also the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’ ) dated 12^th December, 2023.

¶25

(ii) In W.P.(C) 17123/2025 order dated 17^th December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO Ward 92, Zone-8, Delhi for the Financial Year 2017-18 as also the SCN dated 24^th September, 2023.

¶26

(iii) In W.P.(C) 17138/2025 order dated 9^th July, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO Ward 92, Zone-8, Delhi for the Financial Year 2019-20 as also the SCN dated 21^st May, 2024.

¶27

Vide the impugned orders, demands have been raised against the Petitioner in the following terms:

¶28

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶29

Page 2 of 12

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶32

*Writ Petition No.*	*Financial Year*	*Demand of Tax* *(in Rs.)*	*Total Tax* *(in Rs.)*
*W.P.(C)17107/2025*	2018-19	5,26,842	10,71,872
*W.P.(C)17123/2025*	2017-18	19,26,208	40,45,036
*W.P.(C)17138/2025*	2019-20	7,43,971	14,43,300

¶33

Additionally, the present petitions also challenge the following Notifications:

¶34

Notification No. 9/2023 – Central Tax dated 31^st March, 2023;

¶35

Notification No. 9/2023 – State Tax dated 22^nd June, 2023;

¶36

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

¶37

Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11^th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).

¶38

The challenge in the present petitions are 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:

¶39

“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

¶40

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶41

Page 3 of 12

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶44

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).

¶45

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).

¶46

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:

¶47

“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.

¶48

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

¶49

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").

¶50

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned

¶51

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶52

Page 4 of 12

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶55

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.

¶56

6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.

¶57

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.”

¶58

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:

¶59

“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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶63

Page 5 of 12

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶66

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.”

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

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.”

¶70

As observed by this Court in the order dated 22^nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under

¶71

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶72

Page 6 of 12

¶73

Signature Not Verified

¶74

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶75

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 notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.

¶76

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.

¶77

On facts, however, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that in these matters, the SCNs from which the impugned order arises, was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ and though the Petitioner is continuing in business, at the relevant point in time, the accountant did not bring it to the notice of the Petitioner due to which replies were not filed and personal hearings were also not attended. The further submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned orders were passed without providing the Petitioner a personal hearing and in the absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶78

However, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the SCN dated 21st May, 2024 in W.P.(C) 17138/2025 was issued after 16^th January, 2024 i.e., after the change in the GST portal

¶79

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

¶80

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶81

Page 7 of 12

¶82

Signature Not Verified

¶83

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶84

“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:

¶85

“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:4108DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.

¶86

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

¶87

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶88

Page 8 of 12

¶89

Signature Not Verified

¶90

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶91

is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.

¶92

8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

¶93

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.”

¶94

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.

¶95

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

¶96

Moreover, this Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax and Others’ , under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:

¶97

“6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN dated 23rd May, 2024 and the impugned order was

¶98

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶99

Page 9 of 12

¶100

Signature Not Verified

¶101

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶102

passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground.

¶103

7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

¶104

And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order.

¶105

And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly.

¶106

8. 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.

¶107

9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the 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

¶108

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶109

Page 10 of 12

¶110

Signature Not Verified

¶111

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶112

no. and e-mail address:....”

¶113

Two of the SCNs are of 2023 and hence would be covered by Neelgiri (supra) . In any event, in all three cases, the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN having been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.

¶114

Accordingly, the impugned orders in W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and W.P.(C) 17138/2025 are set aside, subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- in each of the petitions as costs with the Sales Tax Bar Association. The bank account details of the Sales Tax Bar Association are as under:

¶115

Name: Sales Tax Bar Association

¶116

Account No.: 90672010003811

¶117

IFSC Code: CNRB0019067

¶118

Bank Name: Canara Bank

¶119

The impugned order in W.P.(C) 17123/2025 is also set aside, subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs, with the Delhi High Court Bar Association. The bank account details of the Delhi High Court Bar Association are as under:

¶120

Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association

¶121

Account No.: 15530100000478

¶122

IFSC Code: UCBA0001553

¶123

Bank Name: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

¶124

The Petitioner is granted time till 15^th December, 2025, to file the reply to SCNs. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall

¶125

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶126

Page 11 of 12

¶127

Signature Not Verified

¶128

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

¶129

be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:

¶130

The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCNs along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh orders with respect to the SCNs shall be passed accordingly.

¶131

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’.

¶132

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. 19. These petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶133

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶134

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE

¶135

NOVEMBER 12, 2025/ kk/ck

¶136

W.P.(C) 17107/2025 and connected matters

¶137

Page 12 of 12

¶138

Signature Not Verified

¶139

Digitally Signed By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Dat e:1 4.11.2025 17:43:36

Super Skin Craft Private Limited through Its Director v. Government of NCT of Delhi through the GST Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Super Skin Craft Private Limited through Its Director v. Government of NCT of Delhi through the GST Officer & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Sabik Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

Manoj Joshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sonu Kumar Vs Union of India

Poorvika N Vs National Testing Agency & Ors.

S S Bhankers Assocation and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Srinivasan Ramanathan (Retd)

Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramu Vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

Devansh Wire and Cables Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sarvatra International Vs the Principal Commissioner of Customs

Wooden Craft Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others & Ors.

Shri Daulat Ram Lamba Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Ms Markex Branding Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax & Ors.

Gem Sanitary Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Vat