Cl Micromed Private Limited vs. Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, CL Micromed Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 24, 2025, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 86, Zone 9, Delhi, raising a demand of Rs. 24,50,760/- for the Financial Year 2020-2021. The Petitioner also challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 40/2021-Central Tax dated December 29, 2021, and Notification No. 40/2021-State Tax (Delhi) dated June 9, 2022. The Petitioner contended that a Show Cause Notice was issued, a reply was filed, but no hearing was granted before the impugned order was passed. The Revenue pointed out that the SCN itself fixed a hearing date, which the Petitioner did not attend. The Petitioner then expressed willingness to pursue its appellate remedy and did not press the challenge to the impugned notifications.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner expressed willingness to avail its appellate remedy against the impugned order and did not press the challenge to the constitutional validity of the impugned notifications. Accordingly, the Court permitted the Petitioner to file an appeal by November 15, 2025, along with the applicable pre-deposit. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within the stipulated time, it shall be adjudicated on merits and not dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Court also clarified that the order passed by the Appellate Authority would be subject to the decision of the High Court in other pending matters challenging the validity of the impugned notifications, specifically referencing the lead matter W.P.(C) 9060/2025 titled Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Dgst Ward 201, Zone 11 & Anr. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated February 24, 2025, is liable to be set aside on the ground that it was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, despite the Petitioner filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that although a Show Cause Notice was issued and a detailed reply was filed, no hearing was fixed, leading to the passing of the impugned order without providing an opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner sought an opportunity of hearing. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Show Cause Notice itself had fixed a date for hearing, and the Petitioner had failed to avail of this opportunity.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or forming the basis of the decision, other than the general context of GST law implied by the nature of the dispute and the challenge to notifications.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 18.09.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 59448/2025
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 14501/2025 & CM APPL. 59449/2025
The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 24th February 2025, in respect of Financial Year 2020- 2021, issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II, AVATO, Ward 86, Zone 9, Delhi. Vide the impugned order a demand of Rs. 24,50,760/- has been raised against the Petitioner.
In addition, the Petitioner has also challenged the Constitutional validity of Notification No. 40/2021-Central Tax dated 29th December, 2021 and Notification No. 40/2021-State Tax (Delhi) dated 9th June, 2022 (hereinafter “impugned notifications”).
It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was served This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 12:26:28
with a Show Cause Notice dated 14th November, 2025 (hereinafter “the SCN”) and a detailed reply was filed by the Petitioner along with various documents. However, no hearing was fixed, leading to the passing of the impugned order without hearing the Petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner prays that an opportunity of hearing may be granted.
Ld. Counsel for the Department points out that in the SCN itself, the date of hearing has been fixed, however, the Petitioner has not availed of the same.
At this stage, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to avail its appellate remedy against the impugned order. The Petitioner also does not press the challenge to the impugned notifications.
Accordingly, the Petitioner is permitted to avail of the appellate remedy. If the appeal is filed by 15th November, 2025 along with applicable pre-deposit, the same shall be adjudicated on merits and shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.
Needless to add, the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be subject to the decision of this Court in the batch of matters where the validity of impugned notifications is under challenge – the lead matter being W.P.(C) 9060/2025 titled Sarens Heavy Lift India Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Dgst Ward 201, Zone 11 & Anr.
The writ petition along with the pending application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/kk/msh This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 12:26:28
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.