Delhi High Court · 2025-08-06
M/S TRANS vs GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-11744/2025 2025:DHC:6610-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S TRANS
- Respondent
- GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 6th August 2025 + W.P.(C) 11744/2025 & CM APPL. 48042/2025 M/S TRANS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Akshay Allagh & Mr. Sandeep Gupta & Mr. Manoj Aggarwal, Advs. versus GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES, & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd September 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, pertaining to the Financial Year 2017-18, as also the consequent order dated 19th December 2023 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). 3. Further, the petition also challenges 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 as also Notification No. 09/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 (hereinafter Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 11744/2025 Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:11.08.2025 16:39:57 ‘impugned notifications’). 4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notification and accordingly, the following order was passed: “4.