The Delhi High Court heard the petition of India Steel, represented by its proprietor, Mr. Anis, challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 28 May 2024 and an order dated 30 August 2024 issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, for the financial year 2019–20. The petitioner also questioned the constitutional validity of two GST-related notifications — Notification No. 56/2023 (Central Tax) dated 28 March 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023 (State Tax) dated 11 July 2024 — on the grounds that they were issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The court noted that the validity of these notifications was already under scrutiny in a batch of petitions led by DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where arguments had been heard extensively. Various High Courts had delivered differing judgments on similar challenges — with the Allahabad High Court upholding Notification No. 9, the Patna High Court upholding Notification No. 56, and the Gauhati High Court striking down Notification No. 56. The Telangana High Court had also made observations on the invalidity of Notification No. 56, and the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court in M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors (SLP No. 4240/2025). Several other High Courts, including Punjab & Haryana, have refrained from ruling on the issue, directing that pending cases be bound by the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the challenge to the impugned notifications is a matter for the Supreme Court. However, it also observed that in many cases — including the present one — demands had been raised ex parte due to petitioners being unable to file replies or attend personal hearings. In the case of India Steel, the impugned order was based on alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims and ITC availed from cancelled dealers. The GST Department had issued reminders seeking documents, to which the petitioner had responded. After reviewing the submissions, the department issued the final order, raising a demand of ₹2,01,03,896.

The court found the impugned order to be reasoned and declined to set it aside. It directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority by 30 September 2025, with the requisite pre-deposit. The GST portal access would be restored within one week to enable the petitioner to download necessary documents. If the appeal is filed within the stipulated time, it will not be rejected on grounds of limitation and shall be decided on merits. The court further clarified that the Appellate Authority’s decision would remain subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings in SLP No. 4240/2025 and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Engineers India Limited v. Union of India.

With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of, along with any pending applications.