NEELMANI ELECTRICALS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & 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: By way of this amendment, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applicat ions, 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

Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 78565/2025 2. By way of this amendment, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 3. For the reasons stated in the amendment application, as the writ petition is at the initial stage, the amendment is allowed, leaving open all the objections of the Respondent.

4. The application is allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record. W.P.(C) 16944/2025 5. The Petitioner - Neelmani Electricals, has filed the present P etition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the show cause notice dated 16th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’), as also the impugned order dated 5th April, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone-6, Delhi for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). 6. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’). 7. 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 Li mited 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. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is

5. In fact, Notification Nos. 09 and 56 o f 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 Notifi cation 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. 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.

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

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 s quarely 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.

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

Operative decision and relief

8. 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 Notification No. 56/2023 -Central Tax in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax &Ors.. 9. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, some of the cases 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. 10. On facts, the impugned SCN was issued to the Petitioner on 16 th December, 2023. A reminder notice dated 28th February, 2024 was also issued to the Petitioner. However, no reply has been filed to the impugned SCN, nor has any per sonal hearing been attended by the Petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, raising the following demands:

Accountant, who looks after their accounts, did not bring to the knowledge of the Petitioner, any information about the impugned SCN and the subsequent order. 15. Be that as it may, since the impugned orde r has been passed without the Petitioner getting an opportunity to raise objections, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. 16. This Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘Sugandha Enterprises through its Proprietor Devender Kumar Singh V. Co mmissioner Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Others’, 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.

17. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the impugned SCN has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority, as the challenge to the impugned Notifications is pending consideration. However, since the Petitioner approached this Court at such a belated stage, the impugned order is set aside, subject to the following conditions: (i) Cost of Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Clerks Welfare Funds. The details of the said amount is as under: Name: Delhi High Court Clerks Association A/c No: 15530100006282 IFSC Code: UCBA0001553

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. 21. All rights and remedies of the parties are left open. 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. 22. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applicat ions, if any, are also disposed of.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with NEELMANI ELECTRICALS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. concerns issue and context: by way of this amendment, the petitioner seeks to challenge the following notifications: ● notification no. 56/2023- central tax dated 28th december, 2023; and ● notification no. 56/2023- state tax dated 11th july, 2024 ● notification no. 9/2023- central tax dated 31st march, 2023 ● notification no. 9/2023- state tax dated 22nd june, 2023 operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending applicat ions, 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) 16944/2025.

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: By way of this amendment, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applicat ions, 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 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 2025-12-12; 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 NEELMANI ELECTRICALS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 16944/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-12-12. 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