M/S GANGA ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28th August, 2024 by which a demand of Rs. 97,53,080/- along with interest has been confirmed against the Petitioner. Operative disposition: The present petition is disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed
• 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

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28th August, 2024 by which a demand of Rs. 97,53,080/- along with interest has been confirmed against the Petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the present petition has been preferred by Mrs. Chakresh Jain who is stated to be a senior citizen of more than 75 years of age and a widow. Mrs. Jain is the sole proprietor of the Petitioner firm who has a dealership agreement dated 14 th October, 2016 with M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in respect of domestic & commercial Liquified Petroleum Gas for a period of 10 years. 4. A notice in Form GST ASMT 10 was issued to the Petitioner firm on

5th April, 2024 (hereinafter “ the notice”) relating to certain discrepancies in the Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter, ‘ GST’) returns filed by the Petitioner firm. The firm was asked to explain within ten days from the issuance of the notice the allegation of short-payment of tax of Rs. 97,53,080/ - for the period 01st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020 after comparison between GSTR -1 and GSTR-3B returns. 5. Thereafter a Show Cause Notice was issued on 29 th May, 2024 (hereinafter “the SCN”) seeking as to why the demand should not be raised against the Petition er firm under Section 73(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

6. Personal hearing notices were issued on 30 th July, 2024, 06 th August, 2024 and 13 th August, 2024. However, the Petitioner neither replied to the notice or the SCN nor did she attend the personal hearing. 7. The impugned Order -in-Original was passed on 28 th August, 2024, raising the demand of Rs. 97,53,080/ - along with penalty of Rs. 5000/ - and Rs. 9,75,308/-. 8. The ground for challenging the impugned Order -in-Original which is raised in the Petition is that the Petitioner firm’s proprietor being a senior citizen was suffering from an ‘acute kidney’ condition due to which she failed to file a reply. It is submitted that from 2022, she is suffering from this condition and hence, her case may be considered with some leniency.

9. It is further submitted that insofar as the Financial Year 2019 -2020 is concerned, in respect of which the present Petition would be connected, challenge to the Notification No. 9/2023 - Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No. 56/2023 - Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023, which is also pending before the Supreme Court - though, no specific orders

seeking quashing of the said notifications has been sought in the present Petition. 10. Heard. 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 batc h 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 Notification s is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

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 f inancial year 2019 - 2020 could have been extended by issuing the Notifications in question under Section 168 -A of the GST Act.

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

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 unabl e 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 pend ing 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 pa ssed 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.”

7. Heard. The Court has considered the submissions made. The Court has perused the records. In this petition, as mentioned above, no 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

Operative decision and relief

12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, considering the medical condition of the Petitioner firm’s proprietor which prevented her from filing a reply to the notices or appearing for the personal hearing, in the opinion of the Court, the matter deserves to be heard on merits. In W.P.(C) 4779/2025titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh V. Commissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, under similar circumstances where no reply was filed to the SCN this Court 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 P etitioner 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.

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 personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address:....”

13. In terms of the decision in Sugandha (supra), this Court is inclined to give an opportunity to the Petitioner firm to file a reply and have a personal hearing in the matter. 14. However, considering that the Petitioner firm was duly served with the notices and had been provided repeated opportuniti es of personal hearing, the Court is of the opinion that a conditional order would be passed in respect of the impugned Order-in-Original. 15. Accordingly, subject to payment of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as costs, the impugned Order -in-Original is set aside. Costs s hall be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association within two weeks. Details of the bank account are as under: • A/c No. – 15530100000478 • IFSC – UCBA0001553

18. The Petitioner shall attend the hearing and a reasoned order shall be passed in accordance with law. 19. Access to the GST Portal, shall be provided within one week, to the Petitioner to enable uploading of the reply as also access to the notices and related documents. 20. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open as this Court has not considered the matter on merits. 21. The present petition is disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S GANGA ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned order-in-original dated 28th august, 2024 by which a demand of rs. 97,53,080/- along with interest has been confirmed against the petitioner. operative disposition: the present petition is disposed off in the above terms. pending applications, if any, are also disposed 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) 16741/2025.

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, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28th August, 2024 by which a demand of Rs. 97,53,080/- along with interest has been confirmed against the Petitioner. Operative disposition: The present petition is disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 73(1); 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 73(1); GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A and the decision date 2025-11-18; 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 M/S GANGA ENTERPRISES v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 16741/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-11-18. 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 73(1); 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 73(1) — 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