Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, B R Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging:

  • Show Cause Notice dated 28 May 2024
  • Demand Order dated 30 August 2024

The Petitioner also challenged the validity (vires) of certain GST Notifications, namely:

  • Notification No. 09/2023 – Central Tax
  • Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax
  • Notification No. 09/2023 – State Tax
  • Notification No. 56/2023 – State Tax

These notifications pertained to extension of limitation periods under GST law.

The matter arose in the broader context of multiple petitions across High Courts questioning whether such extensions were valid under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether GST Notifications extending limitation periods were valid under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether issuance of notifications without proper GST Council recommendation renders them invalid.
  3. Whether adjudication orders passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity violate principles of natural justice.
  4. Whether appellate remedies should be allowed despite limitation in such circumstances.
  5. Whether High Court should decide vires when the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The impugned notifications were issued without following mandatory procedure, particularly:
    • Lack of prior recommendation of the GST Council (as required under Section 168A).
  • Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) was allegedly:
    • Issued contrary to statutory mandate.
    • Subsequently ratified, which is impermissible.
  • The Petitioner argued that:
    • Proceedings were conducted unfairly.
    • Adequate opportunity to respond or personal hearing was not effectively granted in similar cases.
  • The impugned demand order deserved to be set aside as it was legally unsustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Respondents relied on:
    • Validity of notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act.
  • They highlighted:
    • Divergent views across various High Courts:
      • Allahabad High Court upheld Notification No. 09/2023.
      • Patna High Court upheld Notification No. 56/2023.
      • Gauhati High Court quashed Notification No. 56/2023.
  • The matter regarding validity was already:
    • Pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025 (M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV case).
  • Hence, High Court should avoid deciding vires at this stage. 

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

  • Since the issue of validity of GST notifications is pending before the Supreme Court:
    • The Court refrained from adjudicating on vires.
  • On facts of the present case:
    • The Petitioner had already filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
    • An appeal had also been filed.

Key Directions:

  1. Impugned Order Set Aside
    • The demand order dated 30 August 2024 was quashed.
  2. Appeal to be Decided on Merits
    • The Appellate Authority was directed:
      • Not to dismiss the appeal on limitation grounds.
      • To pass a fresh order after hearing the Petitioner.
  3. Issue of Validity Kept Open
    • Final outcome subject to:
      • Supreme Court decision in SLP No. 4240/2025
      • Delhi High Court proceedings in related batch matters. 

Important Clarifications

  • High Court did not decide constitutionality/validity of GST notifications.
  • Relief granted was procedural and equitable, not substantive on vires.
  • The judgment emphasizes:
    • Importance of natural justice
    • Protection of appellate remedies
  • Final rights of parties remain subject to Supreme Court ruling.

Sections Involved

  • Section 168A – CGST Act, 2017 (Power to extend time limits)
  • Section 73 – CGST Act, 2017 (Determination of tax not paid/short paid)
  • Articles 226 & 227 – Constitution of India

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68907052025CW170122024_193821.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.