Facts of the Case

M/S G.L. Khanna and Sons challenged an order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 56, for Financial Year 2017-18, raising a demand of Rs.10,63,436/- pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 26.09.2023, and additionally challenged Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 to extend adjudication timelines. The petition formed part of a large batch before the Delhi High Court concerning the validity of such Section 168A notifications, an issue already pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax). The Delhi High Court, per Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Shail Jain, decided the petition on 26 September 2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the validity of Notification Nos. 9/2023 (Central and State Tax), issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act to extend adjudication timelines, should be decided by the High Court while an identical challenge is pending before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the impugned adjudication order should be interfered with where the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice but did not avail the personal hearing offered.
  3. On what terms the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy instead.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Challenged the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 as well as Notification Nos. 9/2023 (Central Tax) and 9/2023 (State Tax) issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, extending the time limit for adjudicating show-cause notices for FY 2017-18.
  • Pointed out that a reply to the show-cause notice dated 26.09.2023 had in fact been filed on 26.10.2023, but that the impugned order was a non-speaking order that did not consider this reply, and that no effective personal hearing had been availed before the order was passed.
  • Relied on the batch litigation before the Delhi High Court (lead matter DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 16499/2023) and the pending Supreme Court reference on the validity of the Section 168A notifications.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Represented by Standing Counsel, the tax department participated in the batch hearing on the notification-validity question and, on the individual facts, did not dispute that a reply had been filed on 26.10.2023, while the order was passed only after the fixed personal-hearing date of 03.11.2023 went unavailed by the petitioner.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that various High Courts have taken divergent views on the validity of Notifications No. 9 and 56 of 2023 (Central and State Tax) issued under Section 168A, and that the issue is now squarely pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 4240/2025, following which this Court and others (including Punjab and Haryana High Court) have refrained from ruling on the vires of the notifications and instead tailored individual relief.
  • Where the validity of Section 168A notifications extending GST adjudication timelines is sub judice before the Supreme Court, a High Court will avoid ruling on the vires issue and instead grant category-specific relief on the individual facts — such as preserving the statutory appellate remedy without a limitation bar — leaving the appellate outcome subject to the larger pending decision.
  • Since the petitioner had filed a reply to the show-cause notice but did not avail the personal hearing, and the petition was filed only in 2025 against a December 2023 order, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order directly.
  • The petitioner was instead granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act by 15 November 2025 with the requisite pre-deposit, to be entertained on merits without a limitation objection, with the appellate decision itself remaining subject to this Court's ruling in the connected State-notification batch (Engineers India Limited v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 9214/2024).

Important Clarification

  • Where the constitutional validity of a Section 168A limitation-extension notification is pending before the Supreme Court, taxpayers with individual grievances — a non-speaking order, denial of an effective hearing — need not wait for that larger ruling; courts can preserve their appellate remedy without a limitation bar in the interim.
  • Failure to avail a personal hearing that was actually offered, coupled with a long delay in approaching the writ court, will usually persuade a court to decline direct interference with the adjudication order, even while still protecting the taxpayer's appeal rights.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — power to extend time limits for adjudication in special circumstances, the subject of the pending Supreme Court reference.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — statutory appeal, preserved here without a limitation bar.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in favour of the assessee to the extent of preserving the appellate remedy without a limitation bar, without deciding the merits of the underlying order or the notification challenge.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Case No.: W.P.(C) 15080/2025 & CM APPL. 62037/2025. Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Justice Shail Jain. Date of Decision: 26 September 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.