Cristoo Arora vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Facts

The Petitioner, Mr. Cristoo Arora, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated May 29, 2024, issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petition also challenged the vires of Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax. During the pendency of the petition, an order dated August 20, 2024, was passed confirming a demand of Rs. 95,95,823/- raised in the SCN. The Petitioner was granted permission to amend the petition to challenge this order. The Petitioner had not filed a reply to the SCN prior to challenging it, as they were challenging the SCN and the notifications themselves.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP No. 4240/2025. Given that the Petitioner had not filed a reply to the SCN due to the challenge to the SCN and the notifications, the Court decided to grant one opportunity to the Petitioner to file a reply and contest the matter on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated August 20, 2024, was set aside. The Petitioner was granted time until July 10, 2025, to file a reply to the SCN. Upon filing the reply, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to issue a notice for a personal hearing and consider the reply and submissions before passing a fresh order. The Court explicitly stated that the issue regarding the validity of the impugned notifications was left open and any order passed would be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. Access to the GST Portal was to be provided to the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notifications, specifically Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax and Notification No. 09/2023-Central Tax, are valid, considering the procedure followed for their issuance under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner challenges the vires of the notifications, arguing that the proper procedure was not followed prior to their issuance, and in the case of Notification No. 56/2023, the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A, with ratification occurring subsequent to its issuance. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN and contest the matter on merits, given that no reply was filed due to the challenge to the SCN and the notifications. - Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner submits that they were unable to file a reply to the SCN due to the ongoing challenge to the SCN and the impugned notifications, and that adjudication orders were passed ex-parte. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.