GLOBAL TECH FAB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI &ANR.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17th December,2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN') and the impugned assessment order dated 27th April, 2024 pertaining to the financial year 2018 -19. Vide the impugned order, total demand of Rs 7,97,290/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, out of which Rs. 391,976/- and Rs. 3,66,166/- is the interest amount. Operative disposition: In view of Section 107 (7) of the CGST Act, since upon filing of the appeal, the impugned order shall automatically stand stayed, the provisional attachment order dated 11th September,2025, is set
• 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

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17th December,2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN') and the impugned assessment order dated 27th April, 2024 pertaining to the financial year 2018 -19. Vide the impugned order, total demand of Rs 7,97,290/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, out of which Rs. 391,976/- and Rs. 3,66,166/- is the interest amount. 3. The petition also raises a challenge to the order dated 11th September, 2025, wherein the Petitioner's bank account bearing No. 352701010111624, Union Bank of India, Jain Bhawan, Delhi Cantt, had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of Central Goo ds and Services Tax Act,2017 (hereinafter, 'CGST Act'). 4. In addition, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following

notifications: ● Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023; ● Notification No. 56/2023 - Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 ; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘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.

Insofar as the Not ification No. 56 of 2023 (State Tax) is concerned, the challenge is to the effect that the same was issued on 11th July, 2024 after the expiry of the limitation in terms of the Notification No.13 of 2022 (State Tax). 5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 of 2023

The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was to the legality, validity and propriety of the Notification No.13/2022 dated 5 -7-2022 & Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31-3-2023 & 8-12-2023 respectively. 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.” 7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 12th March, 2025, all the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed therein. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: “65.

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

impugned notifications in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEILAAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors.. 7. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors. 8. On facts, however, on the last date of hearing, ld. Counsel for the Department had submitted that the Petitioner was all along aware of the demands raised in the impugned order. However, the Petitioner has chosen not to challenge the same till date, and only when the attachment order dated 11th September, 2025, directing provisional attachment was passed, the impugned SCN, impugned order and the provisional attachment order is sought to be challenged by the Petitioner.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court. 9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are 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. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage. 11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”

Operative decision and relief

(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). 6. The Telangana High Court while not delving into the vires of the assailed notifications, made certain observations in respect of invalidity of Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). This judgment of the Telangana High Court is now presently under consideration by 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. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case: “1.

6. The abovementioned writ petition and various other writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court on subsequent dates, either remanding the matters or relegating the parties to avail of their appellate remedies, depending upon the factual situation in the respective cases. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court in respect of the validity of the

for an appeal to be filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the Petitioner shall be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned order without any further pre-deposit. 11. In view of Section 107 (7) of the CGST Act, since upon filing of the appeal, the impugned order shall automatically stand stayed, the provisional attachment order dated 11th September,2025, is set aside. 12. The Petitioner shall file an appeal before the Department by 15th December, 2025, failing which the Department is free to take action in accordance with law. 13. If the appeal is filed by the Petitioner within the stipulated time period, the same shall be adjudicated on merits. 14. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 15. It is also 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’. 16. The petitions are disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with GLOBAL TECH FAB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI &ANR. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, inter alia, challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 17th december,2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned scn') and the impugned assessment order dated 27th april, 2024 pertaining to the financial year 2018 -19. vide the impugned order, total demand of rs 7,97,290/- has been confirmed against the petitioner, out of which rs. 391,976/- and rs. 3,66,166/- is the interest amount. operative disposition: in view of section 107 (7) of the cgst act, since upon filing of the appeal, the impugned order shall automatically stand stayed, the provisional attachment order dated 11th september,2025, is set 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) 16309/2025.

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 present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 17th December,2023 (hereinafter, 'impugned SCN') and the impugned assessment order dated 27th April, 2024 pertaining to the financial year 2018 -19. Vide the impugned order, total demand of Rs 7,97,290/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner, out of which Rs. 391,976/- and Rs. 3,66,166/- is the interest amount. Operative disposition: In view of Section 107 (7) of the CGST Act, since upon filing of the appeal, the impugned order shall automatically stand stayed, the provisional attachment order dated 11th September,2025, is set Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 107; 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 83; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A and the decision date 2025-11-07; 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 GLOBAL TECH FAB v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI &ANR., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 16309/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-11-07. 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 MADHU 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 83; GST statutory provision - Section 107; 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 83 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 107 — 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