RAMAN ENTERPRISES vs COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 22nd August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 1349/2025 RAMAN ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sailendra Kumar Verma, Mr. Sibhash Chandra Gupta, Ms.Taramg Varshney, Mr. Siddharth Kumar Verma and Mr. Amrish Kumar, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF SGST DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Girish Kaul, Adv. for Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Adv. 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 has filed the present petition challenging the impugned order dated 30th December, 2023 by which a demand of Rs.15,39,686/- has been raised against the Petitioner. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter “SCN”) was issued on 25th September, 2023 wherein no date for personal hearing was fixed. The Petitioner had filed its reply to the same on 25th October, 2023. Thereafter, without hearing the Petitioner the impugned order was passed. After the impugned order was passed, the Petitioner preferred a Rectification Application on 27th March, 2024. However, the said application Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1349/2025 Page 1 of 6 By:RAHUL Signing Date:25.08.2025 14:40:44 was dismissed by the Department on 28th June, 2024 on the ground that it was found to be unsatisfactory. 4. On 3rd February, 2025, the Court had directed the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit explaining the delay in challenging the impugned order which was passed in 2023. The said affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner. 5. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the Parties and has also perused the affidavit filed to explain the latches. The reason for delay is stated to be that, at the relevant point i