Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Laxmi Plastic Products, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging:

  • Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024 for FY 2019–20
  • Order dated 25.08.2024 passed by Sales Tax Officer
  • Validity (vires) of Notifications:
    • Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax
    • Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax
    • Corresponding State Notifications

The dispute arose from extension of limitation periods under GST law, particularly under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Additionally, the petitioner had already filed an appeal under Section 107 CGST Act and deposited the mandatory pre-deposit.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether GST Notifications extending limitation periods under Section 168A CGST Act are valid?
  2. Whether adjudication orders passed (often ex parte) pursuant to such notifications are sustainable?
  3. Whether appeal filed by the petitioner can be rejected on limitation grounds?
  4. Whether High Court should decide validity of notifications when the issue is pending before the Supreme Court? 

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The impugned notifications were issued without proper recommendation of the GST Council, violating Section 168A.
  • Extension of limitation through Notification No. 56/2023 was ultra vires and procedurally flawed.
  • Adjudication orders were passed ex parte without proper opportunity of hearing.
  • The petitioner had already availed statutory remedy under Section 107 and complied with pre-deposit requirements.
  • Therefore, denial of appeal on limitation would cause grave prejudice.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Notifications were issued under statutory powers conferred by Section 168A CGST Act.
  • Various High Courts have upheld validity of similar notifications.
  • The issue is already pending before the Supreme Court, hence no final determination should be made at this stage.
  • The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy through appeal, which is already invoked. 

Court Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court held:

  • The validity of the impugned GST notifications is currently under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025.
  • Different High Courts have taken divergent views, creating judicial inconsistency.
  • Since the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 107:
    • The appeal must be adjudicated on merits
    • It shall not be dismissed on limitation grounds

Final Direction

  • Appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits without rejecting it on limitation.
  • The question of validity of notifications is kept open.
  • Final outcome will be subject to Supreme Court’s decision. 

Important Clarifications

  • The Court did not decide the vires of the notifications.
  • Relief granted is procedural and equitable, ensuring access to appellate remedy.
  • All proceedings remain subject to final outcome of Supreme Court litigation.
  • This judgment reinforces that:
    • Procedural fairness overrides technical limitation in exceptional circumstances.
    • Courts may grant interim relief where legal uncertainty exists at higher judicial levels.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226, Constitution of India
  • Section 168A, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
  • Section 73, CGST Act (Adjudication provisions)
  • Section 107, CGST Act (Appeal provisions)

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS06052025CW163932024_125248.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.