TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 991
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n has been filed by the Petitioner - I Money Wallet Private Limited through its Director Mr. Atul Verma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 23rd December, 2023 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/Avato Ward 64, Zone 4, Delhi (hereinafter 'impugned order') emanating from Show Cause Notice dated 23rd September, 2023 ('hereinafter, SCN'). 5. Vide the impugned order, the tax demand raised against the Petitioner for F.Y. 2017-18 is as follows: (Amount in Rs.) 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppearing 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 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 11. On facts, the case of the Petitioner is that the impugned order, as also the SCN was uploaded in the additional notices' tab. Due to the said reason, it is stated that the Petitioner could not access the SCN and the impugned order. 12. The Court notes that the impugned order was passed on 23rd December, 2023. A perusal of the writ petition would show that there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the impugned order and the SCN has been challenged so belatedly. There is, also no explanation given as to why no reply was filed by the Petitioner to the SCN and the personal hearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led M/s Ganpati Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr. had upheld the same in following terms: "2. The High Court while rejecting the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner - herein, has observed in Para No. 15 of its impugned order as under:- "15. At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may be permitted to avail of appellate remedy as the present writ petition was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and 2 Service Act, 2017. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted time till 31st August, 2025 to avail of its appellate remedy. 3. Thus, the High Court has reserved liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefe....