Delhi High Court · 2025-08-21
SUKHDHAM IMPEX THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ASHWANI BANSAL 2018 19 vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-12665/2025 2025:DHC:7170-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SUKHDHAM IMPEX THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ASHWANI BANSAL 2018 19
- Respondent
- COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS
Judgment text excerpt
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21st August 2025 + W.P.(C) 12665/2025, CM APPL. 51680/2025 & CM APPL. 51681/2025 SUKHDHAM IMPEX THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ASHWANI BANSAL 2018 19 .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Parveen Kumar Gambhir and Mr. Naveen, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD. Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC for R-3/UOI. (M; 98114 11696) Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advs. for R-4. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 51680/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 12665/2025 & CM APPL. 51681/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- Sukhdham Impex through its proprietor Mr. Ashwani Bansal under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the Show Cause Notice (SCN) W.P.(C) 12665/2025 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:25.08.2025 13:04:41 dated 14th December, 2023 and consequent order dated 5th April, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2018-19 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi. 4. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.09/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023, Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No.56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’). 5. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch of petitions with the lead petit