Ms Markex Branding Solutions PVT LTD vs. The Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax Ors & Ors.

Held

The Court noted that the challenge in the present petition was similar to a batch of petitions where the impugned notifications were being challenged. However, due to the delay in filing the present petition and the Petitioner's complete non-participation in the Show Cause Notice proceedings, the Court was not inclined to issue notice. Despite this, to allow the Petitioner an opportunity to address the matter on merits, the Court directed the Petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority by 31st January, 2026, along with the requisite pre-deposit as per Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. If the appeal is filed within this timeframe and with the pre-deposit, it shall not be dismissed on grounds of limitation and will be adjudicated on merits. The proceedings before the Appellate Authority will be governed by the decision in the lead matter, W.P.(C) 9060/2025 ('Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO DGST Ward 201, Zone 11 & Anr.').

Facts

The Petitioner, Ms Markex Branding Solutions Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging Notification No. 40/2021-Central Tax dated 29th December, 2021, and Notification No. 40/2021-State Tax dated 9th June, 2022. The petition also challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18th November, 2024, its summary dated 20th November, 2024, and the consequent order dated 19th February, 2025, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II AVATO, Ward 41, Zone 3, Delhi. This order confirmed a tax demand against the Petitioner for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The Petitioner had not filed a reply to the SCN and had not attended the personal hearing fixed for 9th January, 2025, leading to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner's writ petition should be entertained given the delay in filing and complete non-participation in the Show Cause Notice proceedings, as per Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the impugned notifications and the consequent order are valid. The Petitioner argued that the challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions already pending, where the impugned notifications were challenged. The Revenue did not present any specific arguments in the judgment, as the Court did not issue notice in the petition.