FACTS OF THE CASE

  • The Petitioner, MS Markex Branding Solutions Pvt Ltd, filed Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging an impugned order dated 25 April 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, seeking a demand of Rs. 41,21,366/‑ for Financial Year 2018–19.
  • The Petition also attacked Notification Nos. 56/2023 (Central Tax) & 56/2023 (State Tax) which purportedly extended statutory limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act.
  • Similar petitions were heard in batch proceedings; lead matter being DJST Traders Pvt Ltd v. Union of India & Ors..
  • Multiple High Courts had delivered divergent rulings on the validity of such notifications.
  • Supreme Court was seized of SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC‑SEW‑MEIL‑AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.) raising identical legal questions.

ISSUES INVOLVED

  1. Whether the impugned GST adjudication order could be sustained in light of the Petitioner having responded to the SCN and being denied a fair personal hearing.
  2. Whether Notification Nos. 56/2023 (Central & State Tax) issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act were valid, given conflicting High Court precedents.
  3. Whether writ remedy under Article 226 was maintainable to quash the demand order or avenues under statutory appeal were preferable.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

  • The Petitioner pleaded that the impugned order was passed without affording adequate hearing, despite filing reply (9 Jan 2024) and receiving a reminder notice.
  • Contended that the extension of time via Notification Nos. 56/2023 violated the mandate of Section 168A since there was lack of proper GST Council recommendation and procedural compliance.
  • Argued the writ jurisdiction should be invoked due to fundamental unfairness and substantial prejudice caused by ex‑parte adjudication. 

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  • The Respondents supported the impugned adjudication order, emphasizing statutory provisions were duly complied with and that the Petitioner failed to take advantage of offered personal hearing.
  • Asserted that the notifications challenged were sub‑judice before various High Courts and Supreme Court, and had interim effect binding on the High Court’s adjudication.

COURT ORDER / FINDINGS

  • The Division Bench (Justice Prathiba M. Singh & Justice Shail Jain) observed that:
    Though the Petitioner replied to SCN, they did not avail of personal hearing, and the impugned order was passed only after due notice.
     On prima facie review, no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
     The challenge to Notifications Nos. 56/2023 was kept open and subject to Supreme Court’s decision in SLP 4240/2025.
    Where challenge was to parallel State notifications, those aspects were retained for consideration.
     Petition was disposed with liberty to approach the statutory appellate forum under Section 107 CGST Act by 30 Nov 2025 with pre‑deposit without limitation objections.     

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

  • The Court did not strike down the impugned order but pointed to procedural compliance and statutory appeal remedies.
  • The question of validity of notifications under Section 168A remains pending before the Supreme Court, with the Delhi HC expressly left open.
  • The order reinforces that writ petitions will not lightly supplant statutory appeal mechanisms where adequate remedy exists.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/75406102025CW152012025_190418.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.