Delhi High Court
M/S Gmt Garments vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 April, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th April, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 5304/2025& CM APPL. 24182/2025, 24183/2025
M/S GMT GARMENTS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Prem Kandpal, Ms. Shruti Garg &
Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, Advs. (M:
9968768840)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. SC with Ms.
Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jai Ahuja,
Advs.
Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. (M:
9911211000)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner - M/s GMT
Garments under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia,
challenging the validity of Notification Nos. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31th
March 2023 and 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December 2023. This
Court has had the opportunity to consider a large number of similar matters
where such a challenge has been raised. In W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled 'DJST
Traders Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors.' which was the lead
matter, vide order dated 23rd April, 2025, this Court has observed as under:
"5. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd
April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above
mentioned notifications is presently under consideration
before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled
M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax & Ors., the challenge
made by the Petitioner to the notifications in the present
proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the
decision of the Supreme Court."
3. Accordingly, insofar as the challenge to the Notifications is concerned,
the same shall be governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No
4240/2025 titled 'M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax & Ors'.
4. Coming to the facts, however, the show cause notice (hereinafter,
'SCN') was issued on 23 rd December, 2023, prior to the change in the portal,
which came into effect on 16 th January, 2024. The SCN was uploaded on the
additional notices tab on the portal.
5. According to the Petitioner, the SCN was not in the knowledge of the
Petitioner, hence no reply was filed. The order dated 3rd April 2024 was,
thus, passed without hearing the Petitioner and without any opportunity of
filing the reply.
6. The Petitioner then approached the Appellate Authority under Section
107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 which has, however,
dismissed the said appeal on 11th November, 2024 on the ground that the same
is barred by limitation. The relevant portion of the order of the Appellate
Authority is set out below:
"I have gone through the documents made available by
the Appellant and considered the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the relevant legal
provisions. The demand was raised vide impugned
order dated 03.04.2024. As per section 107 (1) of the
DGST/CGST Act, 2017, appeal against any decision or
order passed under the Act by an adjudicating authority
may be filed by a person before the Appellate Authority
within three months from the date on which the said
decision or order is communicated to such person.
Further, as per section 107 (4), the Appellate Authority
may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the
period of three months, allow it to be presented within a
further period of one month. In this case, the impugned
order is dated 03.04.2024 and the present appeal has
been filed only on 02.09.2024, which is beyond the
prescribed time-limit as per the above mentioned legal
provisions.
In view of above provisions and facts, the present
appeal is time-barred and hence rejected."
7. This Court has already held that the notice if uploaded on the additional
notices tab of the portal, the same would not be proper in as much as the party
would not have even acquired knowledge of the same. This issue has been
dealt in various decisions including in -
• order dated 9 th September, 2024 in W.P.(C) 12589/2024 titled 'Satish
Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax
Officer SGST, Ward 25-Zone 1' ,
• order dated 23rd December, 2024 in W.P.(C) 17867/2024 titled 'Anant
Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato, Ward 83 &
Anr'
• order dated 20th March, 2025 in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 titled 'Neelgiri
Machinery Through its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar v. Commissioner
Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others'.
The order of the Court in Satish Chand Mittal (Supra) reads as under:
"4. It is the petitioner's case that he had not received
the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no
opportunity to respond to the same. For the same
reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for
a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority,
which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later
rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.
5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the
Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the
principal issue involved in the present case is squarely
covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE
Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India &
Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well
as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato
Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the
access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST
Portal under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders'. He
submits that the said issue has now been addressed and
the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab is placed under
the general menu and adjacent to the tab 'Notices &
Orders'.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed
and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to
reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks
from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the
same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording
the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
11. All pending applications are also disposed of."
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the delay in
filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be heard
on merits.
9. Accordingly, the Appeal No. AD0709240005076 is restored to its
original number before the Appellate Authority.
10. The Appellate Authority shall consider the judgments mentioned above
as also the Petitioner's case and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
11. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
APRIL 25, 2025
dj/ck
