VINAY JAIN vs COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~123 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13th August, 2025 + W.P.(C) 12223/2025 VINAY JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for GNCTD CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 49810/2025 2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 12223/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17th August, 2024, pertaining to the Financial Year 2019-20 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). 4. Further, the petition also challenges Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28nd December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’). 5. The validity of the impugned notification 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 12223/2025 Page 1 of 8 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:18.08.2025 17:19:21 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. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section 168A, prior recommendation of the GST Council is essential for