Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Luxmi Jewellers through its proprietor Kanishka Sawhney, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging:

  • The validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023
  • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28.12.2023
  • Corresponding State GST Notifications

The Petitioner also sought quashing of:

  • Show Cause Notice dated 20.05.2024
  • Order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer

The dispute pertained to Financial Year 2019–20, primarily involving extension of limitation under GST law and adjudication proceedings.

The Petitioner contended that the adjudication order was cryptic, non-speaking, and passed without proper consideration of facts.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned adjudication order is liable to be set aside for being non-speaking and cryptic.
  2. Whether the extension notifications issued under Section 168A CGST Act are valid.
  3. Whether the Petitioner was denied adequate opportunity of hearing.
  4. Whether incorrect recording of facts (regarding filing of reply) vitiates the adjudication.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The adjudication order wrongly records that a reply was filed, whereas no reply was actually submitted.
  • The order is non-speaking, lacking reasoning for rejecting the alleged reply.
  • No effective opportunity of hearing was granted.
  • The extension notifications under Section 168A were challenged as ultra vires. 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The department contended that:
    • The Petitioner had been granted adequate opportunities to respond.
    • The reply submitted was unsatisfactory.
    • Further opportunity was given but not availed. 

Court’s Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

  • The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking, as it does not provide reasons for rejecting the reply.
  • There is ambiguity and inconsistency regarding whether the Petitioner had filed a reply.
  • Proper adjudication requires reasoned orders and fair hearing.

Order Passed:

  • The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 was set aside.
  • Matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority.
  • Petitioner permitted to file reply by 10 July 2025.
  • Authority directed to:
    • Provide personal hearing
    • Pass a fresh reasoned order on merits

All rights and remedies were kept open.

Important Clarifications by the Court

  • The issue regarding validity of GST Notifications (Nos. 9/2023 & 56/2023) is kept open.
  • The matter is pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
  • Final adjudication will be subject to Supreme Court’s decision.
  • Access to GST portal must be ensured for the Petitioner.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 – Constitution of India
  • Section 73 – CGST Act, 2017 (Demand proceedings)
  • Section 168A – CGST Act, 2017 (Extension of time limits)
  • Relevant provisions under Delhi GST Act, 2017

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/68907052025CW42112025_153416.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.