Facts of the Case

M/s Shivangi Poly Product challenged a show-cause notice dated 29.05.2024 for FY 2019-20 and the consequent order dated 24.08.2024, and also challenged the vires of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023, which purportedly extended the Section 73 limitation period under Section 168A. The validity of this notification was under consideration in a large batch led by DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where different High Courts had taken divergent views — Allahabad upheld a companion notification, Patna upheld Notification 56, Guwahati quashed it — and the issue was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025. On facts, the petitioner had filed its GST returns for 2019-20 only on 29.06.2023, under the GST Amnesty Scheme, well after the due date.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the show-cause notice and order were barred by limitation given the pending challenge to Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax.
  2. Whether a petitioner who filed returns belatedly under the Amnesty Scheme, and thereby had full knowledge of the proceedings, could still maintain a challenge to the notification and the resultant order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No opportunity was given to file a reply or attend a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed.
  • The SCN and order were barred by limitation once Notification No. 56/2023 extending the limitation period was under challenge.
  • Ultimately conceded willingness to drop the challenge to the notification once confronted with the belated-filing timeline.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner filed its GST returns for 2019-20 only on 29.06.2023 under the Amnesty Scheme, and was therefore not entitled to maintain a challenge to the impugned notification.

Court Order / Findings

  • Given the belated filing and the petitioner's full knowledge of the SCN and order, the Court held the petition on those specific grounds did not merit consideration.
  • However, the petitioner was granted a fair opportunity to raise its challenge before the appellate authority: time was extended till 10 July 2025 to file an appeal under Section 107.
  • If filed with the mandatory pre-deposit by that date, the appeal was directed to be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation.
  • The petitioner's challenge to the impugned notification was recorded as not pressed; the Court's observations were made clear to have no bearing on the appellate authority's decision.

Important Clarification

  • A litigant's own conduct — such as belatedly availing an Amnesty Scheme with full knowledge of pending proceedings — can defeat reliance on a pending notification-validity challenge, even while that challenge remains alive for other similarly placed assessees.
  • Courts disposing of such batch matters are consistently preserving the statutory appeal remedy by extending the limitation window rather than adjudicating the notification's vires themselves, pending the Supreme Court's ruling.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 — power to extend time limits in special circumstances, on GST Council recommendation.
  • Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 — appeal to the appellate authority.
  • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax — purported extension of the Section 73 limitation period, subject-matter of the pending Supreme Court proceedings.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of with directions, partly in favour of the Assessee — no relief on the notification challenge given belated filing, but a fresh, protected window granted to pursue a statutory appeal on merits.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi — Case No.: W.P.(C) 16622/2024 & CM APPL. 70346/2024 — Coram: Hon'ble Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta — Date of Decision: 6 May 2025 (corrected and released 13 May 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.