Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited Vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs Through Its Chairman & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court, in the case of Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, has reiterated the necessity of reasoned orders and the adherence to natural justice principles, particularly the right to a hearing, when passing rectification orders under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act that adversely affect a party. The court set aside a cryptic rectification order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
The petitioner, Ambiience Metcorp Private Limited, challenged a show cause notice dated May 24, 2024, a subsequent demand order dated August 29, 2024, and crucially, an order dated February 28, 2025, which rejected their application for rectification of the demand order. The petition also initially contested the validity of Notifications No. 56/2023-Central Tax and No. 9/2023-Central Tax, which extend various deadlines under the GST Act.
Regarding the challenge to the notifications, the petitioner’s counsel opted not to press this point, acknowledging that the validity of these notifications is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is examining this issue in S.L.P No. 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. This matter involves a cleavage of opinion among various High Courts, with the Allahabad High Court upholding Notification No. 9, the Patna High Court upholding Notification No. 56, and the Guwahati High Court quashing Notification No. 56 of 2023 (Central Tax). The Telangana High Court also made observations on the invalidity of Notification No. 56. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a batch of petitions, including the lead case of DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., had disposed of similar challenges, stating that the outcome would be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision, and continued interim orders. The Delhi High Court, in its own batch of petitions, had similarly observed that while the vires of the notifications were before the Supreme Court, other factual issues could be addressed.
