TaxHeal - GST and Income Tax Complete Guide Portal

Ex-parte GST order set aside on heavy costs; Limitation challenge linked to SC outcome

Issue

Natural Justice: Whether an adjudication order passed ex parte (without a reply or hearing) should be set aside to allow the assessee a chance to defend on merits, despite previous non-compliance.
Limitation Validity: Whether the Notifications extending the time limit for issuing orders under Section 73 (e.g., Notf. No. 56/2023) are valid.

Facts

The Dispute: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the subsequent order passed for the tax period 2019-20.
Petitioner’s Grievance: The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without giving them an opportunity to deal with the case on merits, effectively condemning them unheard.
Limitation Challenge: For the period 2017-18, the petitioner also challenged the validity of CBIC Notification Nos. 56/2023-CT, 09/2023-CT, and state equivalents, which extended the statutory time limit for issuing orders.

Decision

Precedent Applied: The Court relied on Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner of DGST, where a similar matter was remanded to ensure natural justice.
Conditional Remand: Acknowledging that the petitioner did not get a proper hearing but also noting the failure to file a reply earlier, the Court set aside the impugned order subject to a cost of Rs. 50,000.
Fresh Opportunity: The petitioner was granted time to file a reply to the SCN, and the authority was directed to pass a fresh order after a personal hearing.
Limitation Issue: Regarding the validity of the limitation extension notifications, the Court observed that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV. The outcome in the present case regarding limitation is stayed/subject to the Supreme Court’s final decision.

Key Takeaways

Relief Comes at a Price: While High Courts protect the right to be heard (Natural Justice), they are increasingly imposing heavy costs (e.g., Rs. 50,000) on taxpayers who approach the Writ Court after failing to reply to notices during the adjudication stage.

Limitation Limbo: Challenges to the Section 168A limitation extensions are effectively on hold across High Courts, awaiting the final verdict from the Supreme Court in the HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV case.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bird Delhi General Aviation Services (P.) Ltd.

Sales Tax Officer II Avato^*

PRATHIBA M. SINGH and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.

W. P. (C) no. 17254 OF 2025
CM APPL. no. 71045 OF 2025

NOVEMBER 13, 2025

Sparsh Bhargava, Ms. Vanshika Taneja and Ms. Ishita Farsaiyan, Advs. for the Petitioner. Urvi Mohan, Adv. and Kushal Kumar, SPC for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. – This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner – Bird Delhi General Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., has filed the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 27^th July, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 204, Zone-11, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’).

3. 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 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’).

4. The challenge in 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 (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) 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 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 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 7-32025.”

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 Id. 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. ”

5. The abovementioned 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 in the respective cases. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the validity of the Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV v. Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax (SC).

6. 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 Engineers India Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 9214 of 2024, dated 23-4-2025].

7. On facts, the submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 28^th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘SCN’), fixing a date for personal hearing on 4th July, 2024. However, no reply has been filed to the same nor any personal hearing has been attended by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 27th July, 2024, confirming a demand of more than Rs. 7.5 crores. Thus, the impugned order was passed without the Petitioner having an opportunity to deal with the case on merits.

8. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is a regular tax payer and has been regularly filing its tax returns and replying to the notices etc. The Petitioner is unaware as to how the SCN and impugned order skipped their attention.

9. The Court has heard the parties. This Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner of DGST’ (Delhi), under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms:

“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 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.

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:

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.

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.

8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCNand 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.

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 personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:…….”

10. 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, as the challenge to the Notifications is pending consideration.

11. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs, which shall be deposited to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The bank details of the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee are as under:

Name: Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee

Account No: 15530110008386

IFSC Code: UCBA0001553

Bank and Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court

12. The Petitioner is granted time till 15^th December, 2025, 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 no. and e-mail address:

• E-mail Address: vanshika. taneja@sbchambers. com

• Mobile No.: 9811225467

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

14. 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 HCC-SEW-Meil-AAG JV (supra) and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Ltd. (supra).

15. 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.

16. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.