Facts of the Case

M/s Justwork Technologies Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging:

  1. The impugned order dated 21st August 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, DGST for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020; and
  2. The impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 17th May 2024 issued by the same authority.

The petition also challenged the vires of Notifications Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023 (Central & State Tax) issued to extend limitation under Section 168A of the GST Act.

The present matter was one among many similar writ petitions where the validity of these notifications was debated, and in some cases, already addressed by various High Courts and pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC‑SEW‑MEIL‑AAG JV vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.). 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned GST notifications extending adjudication timelines were validly issued under Section 168A, GST Act.
  2. Whether the Petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order, violating natural justice principles.
  3. Whether the impugned order should be set aside due to lack of personal hearing and remanded for fresh adjudication.

Petitioner’s (Justwork) Arguments

  • The Petitioner contended that:
    • They were never afforded an opportunity to reply to the SCN nor to appear for a personal hearing.
    • The impugned order therefore violated audi alteram partem and was non‑speaking and unsustainable.
    • The validity of the notifications which extended limitation periods under Section 168A was also under challenge. 

Respondent’s Arguments

Respondents (Sales Tax Officer / DGST) maintained that:

  • Appropriate notices were served and adequate opportunity was afforded as reflected in the record.
  • The extension of limitation under the impugned GST notifications was legally permissible.
    (Respondents also relied on multiple judicial precedents on Section 168A and extension of limitation.)     

Court’s Order / Findings

After hearing the parties at length, the High Court observed:

  1. Various High Courts had taken divergent views on the validity of Notifications Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 — and the matter was already pending before the Supreme Court (SLP No. 4240/2025).
  2. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not file any reply to the SCN and did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing, resulting in ex‑parte adjudication.
  3. The impugned order was held to be violative of natural justice as no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner to be heard on merits.
  4. Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority with directions to:
    • Grant 30 days for filing the reply;
    • Issue personal hearing notice; and
    • Pass a fresh, reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner.
  5. The challenge to the notifications’ validity was left open pending Supreme Court adjudication. 

Important Clarifications

  • The order did not decide the constitutional or legal validity of the GST notifications themselves, as the issue was pending Supreme Court consideration.
  • Award of costs of ₹20,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee was imposed on the Petitioner.
  • All statutory rights and remedies remain open to both parties.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS27112025CW179692025_170746.pdf

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.