Future Art And Display Vs Sales Tax Officer
Date: August 11, 2025
Subject Matter
Taxpayer to File Statutory Appeal Due to Missed Hearing Opportunity
Summary
The petitioner, M/s Future Art & Display, challenged an assessment order dated December 25, 2023, for the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner primarily sought to set aside the order on the factual ground that, despite filing a reply to the show cause notice (SCN), they were not provided a personal hearing and the resultant order was non-speaking. The petition also challenged the vires of notifications extending the limitation period, an issue pending before the Supreme Court.
The court noted that the petitioner did, in fact, file a reply to the SCN. However, a reminder notice was issued scheduling a personal hearing for November 17, 2023. The court found that the petitioner did not avail this opportunity and, consequently, the impugned order was passed based on the written reply alone. The court was of the opinion that this circumstance did not warrant interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal, thereby declining to intervene on the factual claim of denial of natural justice.
Appeal Direction: The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by September 30, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
Limitation: If the appeal is filed by the stipulated date, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and must be adjudicated on merits.
Portal Access: Access to the GST portal must be provided to the petitioner within one week to download necessary documents.
Subject to Supreme Court Ruling: Any decision by the Appellate Authority on the merits of the case shall be subject to the outcome of the challenge to the validity of the extension notifications, which is pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 and the High Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Future Art & Display through its partner Tariq Ahmad, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 25th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘ impugned order’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2017-18 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.
3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No.9/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’).
4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being 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. 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 7-32025.”
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, ”
5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications 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. 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’.
7. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner on merits is that though he had filed the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2023 (hereinafter ‘SCN’), he was not provided a personal hearing. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has not at all considered the reply filed by the Petitioner.
8. The Court has heard the parties and has perused the records. It is noticed that the impugned order arises from SCN dated 26th September, 2023. A reply is seen to have been filed by the Petitioner on 26th October, 2023 and thereafter a reminder inter alia scheduling the personal hearing on 17th November, 2023, has been issued on 10th November, 2023. Despite the same, the Petitioner has not availed the said opportunity and therefore, the impugned order has been passed only based on the reply filed by the Petitioner.
9. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the order impugned in the present petition does not warrant interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly the present petition is disposed of with liberty given to the Petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, before the Appellate Authority by 30th September, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit.
11. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require. If the appeal is filed by 30th September, 2025, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.
12. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the decision of the Supreme Court in 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 of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.