Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5852 Del

Delhi High Court

Ping Pong Global Limited Through Its ... vs Union Of India Through Joint Secretary & ... on 21 November, 2025

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                          $~3
                          *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                   Date of Decision: 21stNovember, 2025
                                                                     Uploaded on: 24th November, 2025
                          +                W.P.(C) 16974/2025& CM APPL. 73185/2025
                                   PING PONG GLOBAL LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING
                                   DIRECTOR SIDDHARTHA JAIN               .....Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mr. Ramanand
                                                         Roy, Ms. Silky Wadhwa, Mr. Mayank
                                                         Kouts, Advs.
                                                versus

                                   UNION OF INDIA THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY
                                   & ORS.                                  .....Respondents
                                                 Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, GNCTD.
                                                          Mr. Niraj Kumar, Senior Central
                                                          Govt. Counsel, Mr. Chaitanya, Adv.
                                                          for R-1/UOI.
                                   CORAM:
                                   JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                   JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
                                                           JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, challenging the order dated 16th August, 2024 passed in respect of F.Y. 2019-20 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Ward 46, Zone 3, Delhi, whereby a demand of Rs. 75,78,297/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner.

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification Nos.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023

(hereinafter 'impugned notification')

4. The validity of the impugned notification was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled 'DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.'. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed:

"4. Submissions have been heard in part. 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. Insofar as the Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax).

5. 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).

6. 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). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by 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 Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:

"1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5-7- 2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively.

2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively.

3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act").

4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.

6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter.

7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-3- 2025."

7. 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. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

"65. Almost all the issues, which have been raised before us in these present connected cases and have been noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.

67. Since the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim order passed in the present cases, would continue to operate and would be governed by the final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the issues in the aforesaid SLP- 4240-2025.

68. In view of the aforesaid, all these connected cases are disposed of accordingly along with pending applications, if any."

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.

9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as

the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.

10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.

11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025."

5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notification 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, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings 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.

6. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner, on facts, is that

the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter "SCN") was issued to the Petitioner on 24th May, 2024. Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 8th August, 2024 is stated to have been issued to the Petitioner requiring the Petitioner to file a reply to the SCN by 12th August, 2024 and appear for personal hearing on 13th August, 2024. However, the Petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN or appear for personal hearing. and the impugned order was passed on 16th August, 2024.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner became aware of the impugned order, as also another notice in respect of F.Y. 2021- 22, only sometime in May, 2025. The reason for the delay in challenge is stated to be the medical condition of one of the directors of Petitioner who was looking after the affairs of the Petitioner. The relevant medical records have been placed on record which shows that it relates to Mr. Subhash Jain and has been issued by the Department of Nephrology, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The date of the record is August, 2022 and thereafter, the said Director is stated to be suffering from ill health.

8. According, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside as the same has been passed without hearing the Petitioner.

9. The Court has heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The present SCN and impugned order have been passed in respect of the F.Y. 2019-20, however, insofar as the SCN in respect of F.Y. 2021-2022 is concerned, the Petitioner has already filed an appeal.

10. After considering the facts of the case and on the basis of the medical records filed by the Petitioner, the Court is of the view that the lapse on behalf of the Petitioner appears to be bonafide. Further, in view of the fact

that the Petitioner has challenged the impugned notification, validity of which is pending before the Supreme Court and that the SCN in respect of F.Y. 2021-22 has been challenged, it is deemed fit to permit the Petitioner to file an appeal against the present impugned order as well.

11. Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to challenge the impugned order after payment of requisite pre-deposit by way of an appeal.

12. If the appeal is filed by 10th January, 2026, the same would not be dismissed on the ground of limitation but shall be adjudicated on merits.

13. The access to the GST portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.

14. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to 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.

15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 21, 2025/tg/msh