Facts of the Case

Sunbeam Real Ventures Private Limited, through its Director Viraj Gadhoke, challenged an order dated 30 December 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer under the CGST/DGST Act, raising a total demand of Rs. 16,18,716 (tax of Rs. 5,19,321 plus interest and penalty) for the financial year 2017-18, along with the underlying show cause notice dated 21 September 2023. The petition also joined a larger challenge to Notifications No. 9/2023 (Central Tax and State Tax) issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, forming part of a batch of petitions before the Delhi High Court whose lead validity question was already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025. On facts, the petitioner had filed a reply to the SCN on 20 October 2023 but did not avail of the personal hearing offered before the order was passed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the validity of Notification No. 9/2023 (Central Tax/State Tax) under Section 168A should be examined by the High Court while the same question is pending before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether an order passed after considering a filed reply, but without the taxpayer availing a personal hearing that was offered, warrants interference in writ jurisdiction.
  3. What relief, if any, should be granted regarding the statutory appellate remedy given the pendency of the larger notification litigation.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The demand order was unreasoned and cryptic because the petitioner's reply dated 20 October 2023 had not been properly considered by the Sales Tax Officer.
  • The validity of Notification No. 9/2023 under Section 168A was under serious challenge, with divergent views among various High Courts and the matter pending before the Supreme Court, and this uncertainty should inform the relief granted.
  • Since personal hearing was not availed for various genuine reasons, the order deserved to be set aside or, alternatively, the appellate remedy should remain available notwithstanding any technical limitation issue.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Sales Tax Officer had in fact issued a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner, which the petitioner chose not to avail of, before passing the order — a fact the Court itself later confirmed from the record.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court declined to rule on the validity of Notification No. 9/2023, noting it was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 and separately being examined by the Delhi High Court itself in the Engineers India Limited batch for parallel State notifications.
  • On facts, since the petitioner had filed a reply and had also been afforded (though not availed of) an opportunity of personal hearing, the Court held that the impugned order did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
  • It nonetheless granted liberty to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 by 30 November 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that such an appeal would not be treated as time-barred and would be adjudicated on merits, with portal access to be restored within one week and the appellate decision itself kept subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court SLP and the Delhi High Court's Engineers India Limited batch.

Important Clarification

  • Where a taxpayer has actually filed a reply to a Section 73 SCN, courts are reluctant to fault the resultant order merely because the taxpayer chose not to avail of a personal hearing that was duly offered — that is treated as a matter within the taxpayer's own control.
  • Even while declining interference on merits, courts dealing with the ongoing Section 168A notification litigation are routinely preserving the appellate remedy for affected taxpayers by extending the limitation window and expressly making the appellate outcome subject to the pending Supreme Court/High Court rulings on the notifications' validity.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not involving fraud, under which the SCN and order were issued.
  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – power to extend limitation for adjudication on GST Council recommendation, whose validity (Notification 9/2023) is sub judice.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – governs the statutory appeal and pre-deposit for which extended time was granted.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions, in favour of the assessee only in part — the demand order itself is not interfered with, but an extended, limitation-protected appellate remedy is preserved pending the larger notification litigation.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Case No.: W.P.(C) 15331/2025 & CM APPL. 62795/2025. Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain. Date of Decision: 8 October 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.