Delhi High Court
Sp Construction Company vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward ... on 19 September, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th September, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 4716/2025 & CM APPL. 21700/2025
SP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma & Mr. Saket Jain,
Advs.
versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 55
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv.
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 on behalf of the Petitioner-SP
Construction Company, inter alia, assailing the order dated 29th August, 2024
passed by the Respondent No. 1- Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward
55:Zone 3, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following
Notifications:
● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023;
● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024
(hereinafter, 'the impugned notifications').
4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions
wherein inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) No.
16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India
&Ors.was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22 nd April, 2025,
the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications
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. The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have
been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding the
matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending
upon the fact situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the
Supreme Court.
6. 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 impugned notifications in the
present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the
Supreme Court.
7. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State
Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court.
The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India
Limited v. Union of India &Ors.
8. On facts, however, as per the last date of hearing i.e., 11th September
2025, the Court had directed Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel for the
Respondents to seek instructions in the matter.
9. Today, Mr. Sumit K. Batra, ld. Counsel for the Respondents has sought
instructions, and submits that in the summary of the Show Cause Notice dated
29th May 2024, the tabulated chart has been set out, raising a demand of Rs
7,14,584/- which is based on the reconciliation, and after scrutiny of the returns
of the Petitioner itself.
10. Mr. Verma, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits the Show Cause Notice
dated 29th May, 2024 had a remark to the extent that 'The detailed working in
tabular form is attached as Annexure-B'. However, no Annexure-B was served
upon the Petitioner. It is submitted that Annexure-B ought to be served, which
would be a month-wise statement.
11. Let the detailed working, in the tabular form, be supplied within two
weeks from today , i.e., 15th October, 2025. The same shall be supplied both
by e-mail and by uploading on the portal as well.
12. The impugned order is an appealable order. Accordingly, the Petitioner
is given time till 30th November, 2025 to file the appeal against the impugned
order, after making the requisite pre-deposit.
13. In the Appellate proceedings, personal hearing shall be given to the
Petitioner on the following mobile no. and email ID:
● Mr. Pulkit Verma, Adv. (M)- 9716694879
● Email ID- [email protected]
14. Needless to add, if the appeal is filed by 30th November, 2025 as directed
above, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, but shall be
adjudicated on merits. This Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
15. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the
impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating
Authority shall be subject to the outcome of 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. and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled
'Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors'.
16. The present petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending applications,
if any, stands disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
SHAIL JAIN
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2025
sk/sm
