Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Padam Kishore and Company through its proprietor Sh. Naveen Sachdeva, challenged a show cause notice dated 27 May 2024 and a consequent order dated 22 August 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, and additionally challenged the vires of Notifications No. 56/2023-Central Tax, 56/2023-State Tax, 9/2023-Central Tax and 9/2023-State Tax issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act extending limitation for adjudication. The challenge was part of a batch of petitions led by DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023).

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned Notifications extending the limitation period under Section 168A were validly issued.
  2. Whether the impugned order, passed ex-parte without the petitioner engaging with the merits, deserved to be set aside.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had surrendered its GST registration prior to issuance of the impugned SCN and order, and was consequently not regularly checking the GST portal, which resulted in no reply being filed to the SCN.
  • The impugned notifications were issued contrary to the mandate of Section 168A, which requires a prior recommendation of the GST Council before extension of adjudication timelines.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Revenue relied on the position that different High Courts have taken divergent views on the vires of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax, with the issue now 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).

Court Order / Findings

  • Since the challenge to the notifications is already pending before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court declined to decide the vires question and kept it open, to abide by the Supreme Court's eventual ruling.
  • Following its own precedent in Sugandha Enterprises v. Commissioner Delhi GST, where an ex-parte order was passed without affording an opportunity to reply, the Court held that the petitioner deserved a fresh opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
  • The impugned order was set aside; the petitioner was granted time till 31 January 2026 to file its reply, following which a personal hearing and a fresh reasoned order would be required.

Important Clarification

  • Where an SCN and consequent order are passed ex-parte without any reply or hearing, courts will ordinarily set aside the order and remand for a fresh opportunity, even while the underlying vires challenge to the extension notifications is pending before the Supreme Court.
  • Any fresh order passed on remand remains expressly subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision on the validity of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax in S.L.P No. 4240/2025.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A, CGST Act, 2017 – power to extend time limits on recommendation of the GST Council.
  • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and No. 9/2023-Central Tax (and corresponding State Tax notifications).

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Assessee with directions – the ex-parte order is set aside and the petitioner is granted a fresh opportunity to reply and be heard, with the vires challenge left open.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case No.: W.P.(C) 19726/2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Justice Shail Jain
  • Date of Decision: 24 December 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.