SAKSHI ELECRICALS POLYMERS ENGG CORPN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; 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 order dated 26th August, 2024, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). The Petitioner further challenges the issuance of the Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 22 nd May, 2024 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) and 07th August, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, both pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20. Operative disposition: The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 8,
• 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) 15391/2025 Page 1 of 10 $~116 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 08th October, 2025 + W.P.(C) 15391/2025, & CM APPL. 63064/2025 SAKSHI ELECRICALS POLYMERS ENGG CORPN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. P.C. Patnaik, Mr. Devender Kumar, Mr. Dilip Kumar Nayak & Mr. Hemant Mishra, Advs. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for GNCTD CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 63063/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 15391/2025, & CM APPL. 63064/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 26th August, 2024, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). The Petitioner further challenges the issuance of the Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 22 nd May, 2024 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) and 07th August, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, both pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20.

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 2 of 10 4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024; ● Notification No. 09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023; ● Notification No. 09/2023- State Tax dated 22 nd June 2023. (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’). 5. 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.

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 3 of 10 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 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-MEILAAG 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

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 4 of 10 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 7-3-2025.” 7. In the meantime, the challenges were also pending before the Bombay High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court .

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 6 of 10 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 fact situation. All such orders are subject to further orders of the Supreme Court. 7. As observed by this Court in the order dated 22 nd April, 2025 as well, since the challenge to the above mentioned notifications is presently under consideration before 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 challenge made by the Petitioner to the impugned notifications in the present proceedings shall also be subject to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court.

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

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.

Operative decision and relief

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. 66. Keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain from giving our opinion with respect to the vires of Section 168-A of the Act as well as the notifications issued in purported exercise of power under Section 168-A of the Act which have been challenged, and we direct that all these present connected cases shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto shall be binding on these cases too.

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 7 of 10 by the Petitioner and the same has been duly taken into consideration by the Adjudicating Authority, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in the present petition does not warrant interference of this Court under writ jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the Petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, challenging the order dated 26 th August 2024, before the Appellate Authority by 30th November, 2025, along with the requisite pre-deposit. 12. The access to the portal shall be made available to the Petitioner within one week to download any documents which he may require.

If the appeal is filed by 30th November 2025 along with pre-deposits, it shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits. 13. It is further made clear that the decision of the Appellate Authority shall be subject to 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 of this Court in W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India &Ors. SCN dated 7th August, 2025 14. Insofar as the second SCN is concerned, the same is dated 07 th August, 2025 for the Financial Year 2019-20. The said notice has been issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.

W.P.(C) 15391/2025 Page 10 of 10 the period as specified below. namely: (i) for the financial year 2018-19, up to the 30 th day of April, 2024; (ii) for the financial year 2019-20, up to the 31 st day of August, 2024.” 17. In view thereof, the SCN dated 07 th August, 2025 itself is not tenable and is liable to be quashed. 18. The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 8, 2025/pd/ck

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with SAKSHI ELECRICALS POLYMERS ENGG CORPN 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 order dated 26th august, 2024, pertaining to the financial year 2019-20 passed by the office of sales tax officer class ii/ avato, delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). the petitioner further challenges the issuance of the show cause notices (hereinafter, ‘scn’) dated 22 nd may, 2024 issued under section 73 of the central goods and service tax act, 2017, (hereinafter, ‘cgst act’) and 07th august, 2025 issued under section 74 of the cgst act, both pertaining to the financial year 2019-20. operative disposition: the present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. all the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge october 8, 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) 15391/2025.

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 “Remanded / fresh adjudication” 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 order dated 26th August, 2024, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). The Petitioner further challenges the issuance of the Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) dated 22 nd May, 2024 issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) and 07th August, 2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, both pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20. Operative disposition: The present writ petition is disposed of in above terms. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE OCTOBER 8, Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; 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 3; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 107; GST statutory provision - Section 168; GST statutory provision - Section 168A and the decision date 2025-10-08; 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 SAKSHI ELECRICALS POLYMERS ENGG CORPN v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR., the proceeding is W.P.(C) 15391/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-10-08. 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 3; GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 21; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; 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 Remanded / fresh adjudication. 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 3 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 21 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — 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

• M/S. VALLABH TEXTILES v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX GST, DELHI EAST AND ORS — Delhi High Court · Remanded / fresh adjudication
• Sun Aero Ltd. v. PCIT — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• Sun International Limited v. Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Another — 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