CONCEPT EATERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29 th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 91, Zone 8, Delhi (hereinafter “ impugned order”), as alsothe impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21 th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) issued in respect of Financial Year 2019-2020. Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 11,
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 1 of 9 $~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 11thNovember, 2025 + W.P.(C) 17072/2025, CM APPL. 70264/2025 & CM APPL. 70265/2025 CONCEPT EATERIES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 70264/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 17072/2025 & CM APPL. 70265/2025 3. The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29 th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 91, Zone 8, Delhi (hereinafter “ impugned order”), as alsothe impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21 th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) issued in respect of Financial Year 2019-2020. 4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the following Notifications: (i) Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023; (ii) Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023;

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 2 of 9 (iii) Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023; and, (iv) Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter collectively “the impugned notifications”). 5. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein, inter alia , the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India &Ors. was the lead matter in the said batch of petitions. On 22 nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed: “4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same.

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.9. The Patna High Court has upheld the validity of Notification no.56. Whereas, the Guwahati High Court has quashed Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax).

2. However, in the present petition, we are concerned with Notification Nos.9 & 56/2023 dated 31-3-2023 respectively. 3. These Notifications have been issued in the purported exercise of power under Section 168 (A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. 2017 (for short, the "GST Act"). 4. We have heard Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. The issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether the time limit for adjudication of show cause notice and passing order under Section 73 of the GST Act and SGST Act (Telangana GST Act) for financial year 2019-2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168-A of the GST Act.

6. There are many other issues also arising for consideration in this matter. 7. Dr. Muralidhar pointed out that there is a cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts of the country. 8. Issue notice on the SLP as also on the prayer for interim relief, returnable on 7-32025.”

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 5 of 9 upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed. 10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority.

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 7 of 9 reply to the SCN has been filed by the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: And whereas, the taxpayer had neither deposited the proposed demand nor filed their objections/ reply in DRC-06 within the stipulated period of time, therefore, following the Principle of Natural Justice, the taxpayer was granted opportunities of personal hearing for submission of their reply/objections against the proposed demand before passing any adverse order. And whereas, neither the taxpayer filed objections/reply in DRC 06 nor appeared for personal hearing despite giving sufficient opportunities, therefore, the undersigned is left with no other option but to upheld the demand raised in SCN/DRC 01. DRC 07 is issued accordingly. 8. This Court is of the opinion that since the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to be heard and the said SCN and the consequent impugned order have been passed without hearing the Petitioner, an opportunity ought to be afforded to the Petitioner to contest the matter on merits. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted 30 days’ time to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: [...]” 11. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN has been

Operative decision and relief

Hence, it is prayed that the present impugned order be set aside. 9. Ms. Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Department submits that three reminders were issued to the Petitioner, however, no reply was filed and the Petitioner also did not appear for the personal hearings. 10. The Court has heard the parties. In fact, this Court in Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh vs. Commissioner of DGST & Ors., W.P.(C) 4779/2025 , under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN had remanded the matter in the following terms: “6. On facts, however, the submission of the Petitioner in the present petition is that the Petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN dated 23rd May, 2024 and the impugned order was passed without affording the Petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.

Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground. 7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 8 of 9 filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 15 th December, 2025, to file the reply to impugned SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:  Mobile No.: 9810023745  E-mail Address :puneetraiadvocate@gmail.com 13. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the impugned SCN shall be passed accordingly. 14. However, it is made clear that the issue in respect of the validity of the impugned notifications is left open. Any order passed by the Adjudicating Authority shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors. and this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘ Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors’. 15. Considering the delay of the Petitioner in approaching this Court, he is directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the Delhi High Court Bar Association within a period of two weeks:

W.P.(C) 17072/2025 Page 9 of 9 ● Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association ● Account No.: 15530100000478 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 ● Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court 16. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2025/pt/msh

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with CONCEPT EATERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. concerns issue and context: the petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29 th august, 2024 passed by the sales tax officer, class ii/avato, ward 91, zone 8, delhi (hereinafter “ impugned order”), as alsothe impugned show cause notice dated 21 th may, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned scn’) issued in respect of financial year 2019-2020. operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge november 11, The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(C) 17072/2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Allowed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 29 th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Class II/AVATO, Ward 91, Zone 8, Delhi (hereinafter “ impugned order”), as alsothe impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21 th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) issued in respect of Financial Year 2019-2020. Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A and the decision date 2025-11-11; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is CONCEPT EATERIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 17072/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-11-11. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Allowed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is KNOWN_LATER_HISTORY_SUPREME_COURT_SLP_4240_2025_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 168 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 168A — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• Globe Overseas Pvt. Ltd. through Director Vipin Mittal v. Commissioner of DGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• M/s Padam Kishore and Company through Proprietor Naveen Sachdeva v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside
• T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others — Delhi High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Classification, Rate & Valuation

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY