T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others

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: The Petitioner - T V Sundram Iyengar & Sons Private Limited has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 8th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’) as also the consequent impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone-6, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 22,
• 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) 19456/2025 Page 1 of 9 $~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22nd December, 2025 Uploaded on: 23rd December, 2025 + W.P.(C) 19456/2025 & CM APPL. 81140/2025 T V SUNDRAM IYENGAR AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Adv. versus COMMISSIONER OF GST (STATE) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel GNCTD and Ms. Ishita Gupta, Advs. (M:8383031929) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner - T V Sundram Iyengar & Sons Private Limited has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 8th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’) as also the consequent impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone-6, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not press challenge to the provisional attachment of bank account order dated 16th September, 2025. 4. Vide the impugned order the total demand confirmed against the Petitioner is as follows:

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 2 of 9 5. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023, ● Notification No. 9/2023- State Tax dated 22nd June 2023, ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’). 6. 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 lengthqua 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 essential for extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the same. However, insofar as

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 3 of 9 Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) the challenge is that the extension was granted contrary to the mandate under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and ratification was given subsequent to the issuance of the notification. The notification incorrectly states that it was on the recommendation of the GST Council. 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 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

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 4 of 9 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.

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

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.

Hence, the impugned order is a non-speaking order and is liable to be set aside on the said ground. 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

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 7 of 9 handling these notices. The company to whom the impugned SCN is being issued after the demerger, now vests with M/s Trichur Sundaram Santhanam and Family Pvt. Limited. 11. The Court has heard the parties and perused the records. This Court in W.P.(C) 4779/2025 titled ‘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 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.

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 8 of 9 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:....” 12. 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 Notifications is pending consideration. 13. The impugned order is accordingly set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 15000/- to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account . The bank details of the Delhi High Court Bar Association costs account are as under:  Name: Delhi High Court Bar Association Costs Account  Account No.: 15530110179338  IFSC Code: UCBA0001553  Bank & Branch: UCO Bank, Delhi High Court 14.

W.P.(C) 19456/2025 Page 9 of 9 impugned SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue to the Petitioner, a notice for personal hearing. The personal hearing notice shall be communicated to the Petitioner on the following mobile no. and e-mail address: ● E-mail Address: askbnew@gmail.com ● Mobile No.: 9811100198 15. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the impugned SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and a fresh reasoned order with respect to the impugned SCN shall be passed accordingly. 16. However, it is 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 inW.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors. 17. 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. 18. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 2025/dj/sm

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others concerns issue and context: the petitioner - t v sundram iyengar & sons private limited has filed the present petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, inter alia, challenging the impugned show cause notice dated 8th may, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned scn’) as also the consequent impugned order dated 24th august, 2024 passed by the sales tax officer class ii/avato, ward 71, zone-6, delhi for the tax period april 2019 to march 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). operative disposition: the petition is disposed of in these terms. all pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. prathiba m. singh judge shail jain judge december 22, 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) 19456/2025.

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 Petitioner - T V Sundram Iyengar & Sons Private Limited has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 8th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned SCN’) as also the consequent impugned order dated 24th August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 71, Zone-6, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). Operative disposition: The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE DECEMBER 22, 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 2025-12-22; 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 T V Sundram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited v. Commissioner of GST (State) and Others, the proceeding is W.P.(C) 19456/2025, and the decision is dated 2025-12-22. 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
• NEELMANI ELECTRICALS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. — 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