Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Rama Departmental Store, challenged an order dated 23rd April, 2024 for financial year 2018-19, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi, and additionally challenged the vires of Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax and State Tax) issued under Section 168A, a challenge pending in a larger batch led by DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India before the Delhi High Court, with the Supreme Court seized of a related SLP. On facts, the petitioner argued the impugned order was a non-speaking order that ignored its reply dated 11th March, 2024, filed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 12th December, 2023, despite the petitioner also having availed of the personal hearing offered.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned order, passed after the petitioner filed a reply and availed of a personal hearing, warranted interference as a non-speaking order.
  2. Whether the challenge to the vires of Notification No. 56/2023 should be decided in this petition or kept pending the outcome before the Supreme Court.
  3. What relief, if any, is appropriate for a petitioner whose factual grievance does not succeed but whose statutory appeal remedy remains available.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order failed to properly consider the detailed reply dated 11th March, 2024 filed by the petitioner in response to the SCN dated 12th December, 2023, rendering it a non-speaking order.
  • The vires of Notification No. 56/2023 remained under challenge before this Court in the DJST Traders batch and before the Supreme Court in a related SLP, and any adjudication should abide by that outcome.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department pointed to the record showing that reminders were issued on 1st February and 5th March, 2024, that the petitioner filed its reply on 11th March, 2024, and was afforded a personal hearing before the order was passed after due consideration of the reply.
  • On the notifications, the Revenue relied on the Court's own batch order recognising that different High Courts had taken divergent views and that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court.

Court Order / Findings

  • On perusing the record, the Court found that reminders were duly issued, the reply was in fact filed and considered, and a personal hearing was afforded before the order was passed on merits, so the order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
  • Where the record shows that a reply was actually considered and a personal hearing genuinely afforded before a GST demand order was passed, a writ court will not re-appreciate the merits and will relegate the taxpayer to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107, even while keeping the underlying notification-vires question open for the pending Supreme Court proceedings.
  • The petition was disposed of with liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 along with the requisite pre-deposit by a fixed date, directing that such an appeal, if timely filed, would not be dismissed on limitation and would be heard on merits, subject to the outcome of the notification-vires litigation before the Supreme Court and this Court's own pending batch.

Important Clarification

  • Where the adjudicating authority has genuinely considered the taxpayer's reply and afforded a personal hearing, courts will not treat the resulting order as non-speaking merely because it went against the taxpayer.
  • Even while declining interference on facts, courts protect the taxpayer's right to a statutory appeal by extending the limitation window and directing that a timely-filed appeal be heard on merits without a limitation objection.
  • The final outcome on the merits (including any relief on the notification-vires challenge) remains contingent on the Supreme Court's ruling in the pending SLP, so such petitioners retain an avenue for further relief.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – source of the challenged Notification No. 56/2023 extending limitation for passing assessment orders.
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid, under which the impugned order was passed.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – statutory appeal remedy, access to which was preserved without a limitation bar.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is largely in favour of the Department on the facts, though the petitioner retains the benefit of a limitation-protected right to appeal; overall, this is a disposal with directions rather than a clean win for either side.

Case Details

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi; W.P.(C) 10221/2025 and CM APPL. 42448/2025; Rama Departmental Store vs Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO Ward 61 and Others; Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain; Decided on 18.08.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.