Validity of GST Notification upheld without personal hearing of assessee: Delhi HC Sets aside Order [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Goods and Service Tax (GST ) order which upheld the validity of the GST notification even without personal hearing of assessee. The bench found that the Petitioner had then applied for rectification through an application raising various grounds, which were rejected without considering any of the raised grounds.

The Petitioner, Sangeeta Goel widow of Late Ashok Kumar Goyal (Trade Name) M/s Shri Balaji Enterprises, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia, challenges the Show Cause Notice dated 30th November, 2023 (‘impugned SCN’).

GST READY RECKONER: Complete Topic wise Circulars, Instructions & Guidelines Click here

The present petition also challenges the Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs  (‘the impugned notification’). The impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’.

Top Stories No Justification to Withhold Duty Drawback: Delhi HC Directs Customs to Release ₹9.13 Lakh to Exporter [Read Order]

The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for extending deadlines.

In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council.

Complete Referencer of GSTR-1, GSTR-1A, GSTR-3B, GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C, Click Here

In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).

Cement Cleared in Packaged Form with RSP Qualifies for Concessional Duty under Notification, Irrespective of Buyer: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Telangana High Court while not delving into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court . In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein.

A division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, the Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notification therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Complete Blueprint for Preparing Project Reports, click here

Delhi HC Orders Provisional Release of Roasted Areca Nuts for Industrial use after Conflicting Test Reports [Read Order]

On facts, the submission of the Petitioner is that the issue raised in the impugned SCN is in respect of a clerical error in GSTR-09. In fact, a reply detailing the same is stated to have been filed by the Petitioner on 13th March,2024. It is her grievance that, despite the reply being filed, the summary of the order records that the reply is not furnished. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had then applied for rectification through an application raising various grounds. However, the said rectification applications were rejected on 18th July, 2024 without considering any of the raised grounds.

Considering the fact that Petitioner’s replies has not been duly considered and no personal hearing is seen to have been provided, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the concerned Adjudicating Authority for the Petitioner to be heard on merits. The Petitioner is permitted to file any additional reply or documents, if required, by 10th July, 2025. Personal hearing shall be provided to the Petitioner, and the notice to the same shall be sent to following email address: Email – wakhan.bol@gmail.com

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates