Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories Limited vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
Held
The Court held that since the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to raise their contentions prior to the passing of the Order-in-Original, they should be permitted to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court referenced its previous order in W.P(C) 11906/2025 (M/S Ganpati Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Anr.) and the Supreme Court's upholding of that order in SLP(C) No. 27867/2025 (M/s Ganpati Polymers v. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax & Anr.). Accordingly, the Petitioner was granted time until January 31, 2026, to file an appeal. The appeal, if filed by this date along with the mandatory pre-deposit, would be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The Court expressly left undecided any issues related to the merits of the demand itself.
Facts
The Petitioner, JHS Svendgaard Laboratories Limited, sought to quash an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated April 22, 2024, which raised a demand of Rs. 6,19,245/-, and the preceding Show Cause Notice dated December 8, 2023. The Petitioner stated they were unaware of the OIO's existence until a new consultant informed them. The Petitioner had not filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice, despite a reminder. The Revenue contended that the Petitioner had filed all returns up to date, making their ground unsustainable. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not have an opportunity to present their contentions before the OIO was passed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to avail the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, despite not filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice and not being aware of the Order-in-Original until after its passing? The Petitioner argued that they did not receive knowledge of the Order-in-Original and its passing until a new consultant informed them, thus they did not have an opportunity to raise their contentions prior to its issuance. The Revenue contended that since the Petitioner had filed all their returns up to date, the Petitioner's ground for seeking relief was not sustainable.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 11.12.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The Petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22nd April, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘OIO’) by which a demand has been raised against the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 6,19,245/-, as also the Show Cause Notice dated 8th December, 2023 which led to the passing of the OIO.
Today, the Court has heard ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. It is submitted that in this case, the Petitioner has not filed any reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 8th December, 2023, despite the reminder notice being issued on 6th April, 2024. 4. On this issue, the stand of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner did not come to know of the existence and passing of the OIO, and it was only when the newly appointed consultant informed the Petitioner of the same, that it acquired the knowledge
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.