TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 31st May, 2024 and 26th September, 2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCNs') and the consequent orders dated 01st August, 2024 and 20th December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Delhi. 4. Vide the impugned SCNs the demand raised against the Petitioner for the Financial Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 is as under: (i) Demand vide impugned SCN dated 31st May, 2024: Sr.No. Tax Rate (%) Turnover Tax Period Act POS (Place of Supply) Tax Interest Penalty Fee Others Total From To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 0 0.00 Apr-19 Mar-20 SGST NA 11,989.00 10,075.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 32,064.00 2 0 0.00 Apr-19 Mar-20 CGST NA 11,989.00 10,075.00 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 32,064.00 3 0 0.00 Apr-19 Mar-20 IGST Other Territory 1,04,65,351 87,94,336.00 10,46,535.00 0.00 0.00 2,03,06,222.00 Total 1,04,89,329 88,14,486.00 10,66,535.00 0.00 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffect 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 & 8-12-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../AVATO. 13. Thereafter, SCN was issued on 31st May, 2024. The further submission of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the SCN dated 31st May, 2024 did not come to the notice of the Petitioner and, therefore, no reply was filed by the Petitioner. 14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to explain the conduct of the Petitioner by stating that since the earlier entity had been fully taken over, the GST portal of the said entity was not been accessed regularly, and in fact, the impugned SCNs and the impugned orders came to the knowledge of the Petitioner only in July of 2025. 15. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh (Supra), under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms: "6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN dated 23rd May, 2024 and the impugned order was passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is l....