Disposed

Krishna Traders v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Delhi HC15 May 2025W.P.(C)/6494/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A GST demand confirmed under Section 73 was challenged along with Notifications Nos. 56/2023 (State and Central Tax). The court found the reply and personal hearing were duly considered and declined interference since the order is appealable, while permitting a time-bound appeal subject to the Supreme Court's decision on the notifications' validity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file appeal under Section 107 by 15th July 2025 with pre-deposit; not to be dismissed on limitation; access to GST portal to be ensured.

Krishna Traders Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~55

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15^th May, 2025

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6494/2025 & CM APPL. 29589/2025 KRISHNA TRADERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr.M.A. Ansari and Ms.Tabbassum Firdause, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jai Ahuja, Advocates Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for R-4/UOI

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

¶7

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶8

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶9

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the following -

¶10

(i) summary of Show Cause Notice in form DRC-01 dated 15th December 2023, (hereinafter, ‘ the impugned SCN’ ); and (ii) the summary order dated 29th April, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘ the impugned order ’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 32, Zone 1, Delhi (hereinafter ‘Respondent-Department’ ) under Section 73 of the Delhi/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide which a demand to the tune of Rs. 1,53,66,782/- has been confirmed.

¶11

This petition also challenges Notification Nos.56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 and Notification Nos.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶16

December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘ impugned notifications ’);

¶17

The impugned notifications were under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’ . On the last date of hearing i.e ., 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed:

¶18

“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).

¶19

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).

¶20

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

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶25

Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:

¶26

“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.

¶27

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").

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.”

¶32

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:

¶33

“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.

¶34

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signed By:DEVANSHU W.P.(C) 6494/2025 JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶37

Page 3 of 7

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶47

Page 4 of 7

¶48

Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶49

broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”

¶50

Thereafter, on 23rd 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 validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

¶51

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’.

¶52

On facts, the submission of the Petitioner is that the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 15th December, 2023 has been issued on the grounds that Input Tax Credit (ITC) was claimed on the basis of transactions with (i) dealers whose GST registrations have been cancelled, and (ii) dealers who are alleged defaulters in filing returns and non-payment of tax. It is submitted that the Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the SCN on 15th January, 2024. However, the impugned order has been passed without due consideration of the said reply.

¶53

Heard the parties. The Court has also perused the records. It is noticed that the reply has been filed and even the Personal hearing has also been granted in this matter and the proprietor of the Petitioner has appeared before the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order has also given clear reasons

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶56

Page 5 of 7

¶57

Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶58

as to why the order is being passed and in the opinion of the Court, has duly considered the reply. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted below:

¶59

In view of the above circumstances, and considering the fact the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and

¶60

Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

¶61

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶62

Page 6 of 7

¶63

Services Tax Act, 2017, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference under the writ jurisdiction.

¶64

However, considering the fact that the challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications are still pending before the Supreme Court, the Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the concerned Appellate Authority by 15^th July, 2025. If the appeal is filed by 15th July, 2025 along with the prescribed pre-deposit the appeal shall not be disposed on the grounds of limitation, and shall be heard on merits.

¶65

All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. Access to the GST portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable access to notices and related documents. 12. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of impugned notifications is left open and the order of the Appellate 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 ’ as also of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘ Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’. 13. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶66

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶67

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE

¶68

MAY 15, 2025/SV

¶69

Signature Not Verified

¶70

W.P.(C) 6494/2025

¶71

Page 7 of 7

¶72

Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Da te:1 9.05.2025 20:11:02

Krishna Traders v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Traders v. Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

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

Verto Bizserv Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs Avgalla Meena

Suraj Tiwari Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Jagjit Singh Hanspal Vs Gurpreet Kaur Hanspal

Mr Bharat Anand Vs Gail (India) Limited & Anr.

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. Vs Parvesh Gautam & Anr.

Mohd. Nasir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Mahesh Chandra Vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Verto Bizserv Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Surender Kumar Gupta Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Rus Education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Principal Additional Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence and Ors.

Sunny Jagga Vs Union of India & Anr.

Kinri Dhir Vs Veer Singh

Kinri Dhir Vs Veer Singh