Facts of the Case

The Petitioner — M/s K.K. Construction Co., through its proprietor — filed Writ Petition No. 12943/2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging:

  1. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 8.12.2023 issued by the office of the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi; and
  2. The consequent Adjudication Order dated 22.4.2024 raising an aggregate demand of ₹4,12,73,823/- for Financial Year 2018‑19.

The Petitioner also challenged the vires (constitutional validity) of Notification No. 9/2023‑State Tax dated 31.03.2023 and Notification No. 56/2023‑State Tax dated 11.07.2024 contending that the procedures mandated under the GST statutory scheme were not complied with prior to issuance.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice and adjudication order were legally sustainable when passed without proper consideration of the Petitioner’s replies and documents.
  2. Whether the Notifications challenged were valid under the applicable provisions of GST law (specifically regarding extension of time limits under Section 168A of the GST statute).

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Petitioner contended that:

  • The SCN and adjudication order were passed without due consideration of the Petitioner’s written replies, supporting documents, and personal hearings.
  • The impugned notifications were ultra vires and inconsistent with the procedural threshold established under the GST Acts (involving mandatory prior recommendation by the GST Council and compliance with Section 168A).

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondents (GST Department) argued that:

  • The Petitioner appeared for personal hearings and already explained its position before the adjudicating authority.
  • The Petitioner’s challenge was belated and, in any event, the Petitioner ought to be relegated to avail statutory appellate remedies rather than seek relief under writ jurisdiction. 

Court’s Findings / Order

After considering submissions, the Delhi High Court held that:

  • A factual determination regarding conflicting figures in the tax returns (GSTR‑1 vs. GSTR‑3B) and liability could not be resolved in a writ petition without records and detailed materials.
  • The Petitioner is relegated to avail statutory appellate remedies (i.e., filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority).
  • If such appeal is filed on or before 15.10.2025 with the requisite pre‑deposit, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be considered on merits.
  • The appellate process shall be subject to the outcome of related proceedings pending before the Supreme Court and this High Court in connected matters concerning the validity of the contested notifications.

The Petition was disposed of in these terms; pending applications, if any, were also disposed. 

Important Clarifications

  • The Court did not adjudicate the substantive validity of the notifications challenged; instead it directed the Petitioner to pursue appellate remedy.
  • The issue of notifications’ validity is sub‑judice before the Supreme Court in related SLP No. 4240/2025. 

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

  • Article 226 — Constitution of India (Writ Jurisdiction)
  • GST Statutes (including Section 168A) — Pertaining to extension of time limits
  • Statutory Appellate Remedies under GST regime (not specified by section number in judgment, but invoked as statutory remedy alternative to writ relief)

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS26082025CW129432025_152042.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.