Jaitsi Creation Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kamal Kumar Bothra v. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others
$~8 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2392/2025 & CM APPL. 11286/2025 JAITSI CREATION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. KAMAL KUMAR BOTHRA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar & Mr. Praveen Gambhir, Advocates.
versus COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Subodh Kumar Kaushik, SPC with Ms. Chhaya Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
O R D E R
% 29.04.2025 1.
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.
The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Kamal Kumar Bothra under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 30th August, 2024 by which the demand to the tune of Rs. 7,08,451/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner. 3.
Additionally, the present petition also inter alia challenges the Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter, 'the impugned notifications').
4.
The impugned notifications have been under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) No. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. In the said batch of matters, on 22nd April, 2025 this Court had heard the parties at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and passed the following order:
"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 HCCSEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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 SLP4240-2025.
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 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 authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
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.
As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025, 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 notification in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.
6.
On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner was that the show cause notice dated 23rd May, 2024 was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices' tab. However, vide the order dated 6th March, 2025 the predecessor bench of this Court had noticed that the SCN was uploaded only after the change was brought about in GST portal on 16th January, 2024. In view of this, the Court had directed the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit which has been filed. 7.
However, today it is noticed that the additional affidavit also states that the Show Cause Notice was not accessible. This stand, however, is disputed by the Department.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
8.
Heard the parties. Considering that the fact that Portal had been rectified after 16th January, 2024 and failure of the Petitioner to provide any justification for not filing the reply or attending the personal hearing, the matter in the opinion of the court, deserves to be dismissed. 9.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal in terms of Section 107 of the Act. If the Appeal is filed within 45 days along with the pre-deposit it shall not be dismissed due to limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. 10.
However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notification is left open and the order of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J APRIL 29, 2025/da/Ar.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.