JATIN GROVER v. COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; 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– Laxmi Plastic Products under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 25th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). Operative disposition: The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 6, 2025/MR/ss (corrected and released on 13th May,
• 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) 16393/2024 Page 1 of 7 $~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 06th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 16393/2024 & CM APPL. 69092/2024 LAXMI PLASTIC PRODUCTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR JATIN GROVER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain, Advocate (Mob. 9717595497), e-mail (Ujjwaljainadvocate@gmail.com). versus COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav, SPC with Mr. Ansh Kalra, Ms. Kamna Behrani and Mr. Divyanshu Sinha, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sushil Raja, SPC with Mr. Hitanshu Mishra, Advocate for UOI. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner– Laxmi Plastic Products under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 25th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

W.P.(C) 16393/2024 Page 2 of 7 3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 9/2023Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 as also the Notification No. 9/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’). 4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’ . In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed: “4.

Insofar as the Notification 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 (Central Tax) were challenged before various other High Courts. The Allahabad Court has upheld the

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.

W.P.(C) 16393/2024 Page 4 of 7 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 7-3-2025.” 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. Almost all the issues, which have been raised before us in these present connected cases and have been noticed hereinabove, are the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP.

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) 16393/2024 Page 5 of 7 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.

Operative decision and relief

W.P.(C) 16393/2024 Page 3 of 7 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.

W.P.(C) 16393/2024 Page 7 of 7 10. The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 6, 2025/MR/ss (corrected and released on 13th May, 2025)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with JATIN GROVER v. COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS. concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed by the petitioner– laxmi plastic products under article 226 of the constitution of india challenging the show cause notice dated 29th may, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the scn’) issued by the department of trade and taxes, gnctd, pertaining to the financial year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 25th august, 2024 passed by the office of sales tax officer class ii/ avato, delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). operative disposition: the present petition is disposed of in said terms. pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge rajneesh kumar gupta judge may 6, 2025/mr/ss (corrected and released on 13th may, 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) 16393/2024.

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 “Disposed” 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– Laxmi Plastic Products under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes, GNCTD, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20, as also the consequent order dated 25th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). Operative disposition: The present petition is disposed of in said terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MAY 6, 2025/MR/ss (corrected and released on 13th May, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; 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 107; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A and the decision date 2025-05-06; 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 JATIN GROVER v. COMMISSIONER OF DGST & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 16393/2024, and the decision is dated 2025-05-06. 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 RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA. 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 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 Disposed. 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 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

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal — Delhi High Court · Disposed

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