TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 248
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Brij Machine Tools through its Proprietor Brij Mohan Agarwal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the following: (i) the show cause notice (hereinafter, 'the SCN') dated 20th December, 2023 issued for the financial year 2018-19 (ii) the adjudication order dated 9th April, 2024 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 21, Zone 2, Delhi under Section 73 of the Delhi/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'DGST/CGST Act, 2017' 3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereinafter, 'the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22nd April, 2025, since the challenge to the above mentioned notification is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioners get a fair opportunity to be heard. The order of the Court in Sathish 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 state....