R K Plastic Through Its Proprietor Ashok Kumar vs. Commissioner Of Dgst & Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, RK Plastic, through its proprietor Ashok Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging several notifications related to GST, including Notification No. 9/2023 and 56/2023 (Central Tax and State Tax). The Petitioner also sought to set aside a Show Cause Notice dated 23rd May, 2024, and an order dated 10th August, 2024, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone 6, Delhi, concerning the Financial Year 2019-20. The challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications was pending before the Supreme Court. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking. The impugned order noted that the Petitioner had failed to file a reply or attend personal hearings, despite opportunities. The High Court, considering the pending Supreme Court matter and the Petitioner's failure to participate in adjudication, decided to grant another opportunity.

Held

The Court held that the challenge to the validity of the impugned notifications was pending before the Supreme Court in SLP No 4240/2025. Given this pendency and the fact that the Petitioner had not availed opportunities to file a reply or attend personal hearings, the Court decided to grant the Petitioner another opportunity to be heard on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10th August, 2024, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The Petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice by 10th July, 2025. Upon filing the reply, the Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide the Petitioner a personal hearing and pass a comprehensive adjudication order on merits, considering the Petitioner's reply and submissions. The Court explicitly stated that the issue of the validity of the impugned notifications was left open and would be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The Court also directed that access to the GST portal be ensured for the Petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that where the validity of underlying notifications is sub judice before the Supreme Court, and a party has failed to participate in adjudication proceedings, the High Court may, in its discretion, remand the matter to provide an opportunity for adjudication on merits, without prejudice to the final outcome of the Supreme Court's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax, Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax, Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax, and Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax are ultra vires the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Delhi Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, respectively, due to procedural irregularities in their issuance, particularly concerning the recommendation of the GST Council and adherence to Section 168A of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the impugned notifications were issued without following the proper procedure, specifically that the extension of deadlines was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the CGST Act, with ratification given subsequent to issuance, and that Notification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) was issued after the expiry of the limitation period. The Petitioner also argued that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the notifications. However, the revenue's stance is implicit in the issuance of the SCN and the impugned order, which sought to confirm the demand. The revenue's representative appeared and was heard.