Facts of the Case

Sukhdham Impex, through its proprietor Mr. Ashwani Bansal, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a show-cause notice dated 14th December 2023 and the consequent order dated 5th April 2024 for FY 2018-19, passed by the Sales Tax Officer/AVATO, Delhi. The petition additionally challenged the vires of Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax/State Tax, issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 to extend the time limit for adjudicating Section 73 notices. The petitioner had not filed a reply and was not granted a personal hearing, so the order was passed ex parte; its subsequent appeal, filed on 22nd August 2024, was beyond the limitation period under Section 107(1).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal under Section 107(1) can be condoned in view of the pending Supreme Court challenge to the validity of the Section 168A notifications extending limitation.
  2. Whether the appeal should be directed to be heard on merits notwithstanding the limitation bar, while keeping the notification-vires question open.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed without the petitioner filing a reply and without any opportunity of personal hearing, making it an ex parte determination on merits.
  • The underlying notifications extending the limitation for issuing Section 73 orders were procedurally invalid, as proper prior recommendation of the GST Council under Section 168A was not obtained for at least one notification.
  • Different High Courts have taken divergent views — Allahabad upheld Notification No. 9, Patna upheld Notification No. 56, while Guwahati quashed Notification No. 56 — and the issue is now pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
  • The appeal, filed with the requisite pre-deposit, deserved to be entertained on merits rather than dismissed on a technical limitation ground given this unsettled legal landscape.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Counsel for GNCTD and the Union of India relied on the Court's own composite framework evolved in the batch of connected notification-validity petitions.
  • It was not seriously disputed that the case fell within one of the categories for which the Court had proposed interim relief pending the Supreme Court's decision.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that the validity of the impugned notifications was squarely pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax), and that coordinate High Courts had adopted a policy of judicial restraint pending that outcome.
  • Since the appeal had already been filed with the requisite pre-deposit, the Court held that the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned and the appeal shall be adjudicated on merits rather than treated as time-barred.
  • All rights and contentions of the parties were left open, and the appellate authority's eventual decision was made expressly subject to the Supreme Court's ruling in SLP No. 4240/2025 and to this Court's decision in the lead matter, Engineers India Limited vs. Union of India (W.P.(C) 9214/2024).
  • The writ petition, along with pending applications, was disposed of in these terms.

Important Clarification

  • Pendency of a bona fide vires challenge to the Section 168A limitation-extension notifications before the Supreme Court is being treated by High Courts as sufficient ground to condone delay in filing GST appeals, provided the assessee has made the requisite pre-deposit.
  • Courts are consciously avoiding an independent ruling on the notifications' validity, instead granting categorized interim relief and keeping the final outcome tied to the Supreme Court's decision.
  • Ex parte orders passed without a reply or personal hearing remain a strong independent ground for such relief even where the vires challenge itself is left undecided.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 — empowers extension of time limits in special circumstances on the GST Council's recommendation; the notifications extending Section 73 deadlines were challenged under this provision.
  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 — the underlying provision for determination of tax not paid, for which the limitation was purportedly extended by the impugned notifications.
  • Section 107(1), CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the limitation period for filing a first appeal against an adjudication order.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the petitioner: the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal is to be heard on merits, but the final outcome remains subject to the Supreme Court's pending ruling on the notifications' validity.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 12665/2025, CM APPL. 51680/2025 & CM APPL. 51681/2025
Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain
Date of Order: 21st August 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.