Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

july 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-07-16

RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL GARG vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation / case number
W.P.(C)-10001/2025 2025:DHC:5832-DB
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL GARG
Respondent
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~91 & 97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16th July, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10001/2025, CM APPL. 41561/2025 & CM APPL. 41562/2025 RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Khadaria & Mr. Ishan Mittal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD. AND + W.P.(C) 10026/2025, CM APPL. 41706/2025 & CM APPL. 41707/2025 RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Khadaria & Mr. Ishan Mittal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner- M/s. Rahul Polymers through its Proprietor under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia challenging the following: (i) the Show Cause Notice dated 23rd May, 2024 and order dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10001/2025 & connected matter Page 1 of 7 By:RAHUL Signing Date:24.07.2025 10:33:37 10th August, 2024 passed in respect of FY 2019-20 in W.P.(C) 10001/2025, (ii) the Show Cause Notice dated 16th December, 2023 and order dated 6th April, 2024 passed in respect of FY 2018-19 in W.P.(C) 10026/2025, passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi. 3. Additionally, the petitions also challenge the vires of Notification No.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and Notification No. 56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’). 4. The validity of the impugned notifications was under consideration before this Court in a batch

RAHUL POLYMERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAHUL GARG vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. · Niyam