Delhi High Court · 2025-07-18
REAL AQUA HYGIENE SOLUTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SANJEEV SHARMA vs COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-10230/2025 2025:DHC:5917-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- REAL AQUA HYGIENE SOLUTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SANJEEV SHARMA
- Respondent
- COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS
Judgment text excerpt
$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th July, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10230/2025 & CM APPLs. 42508/2025, 42509/2025 REAL AQUA HYGIENE SOLUTION THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. SANJEEV SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Praveen Kumar Gambhir, Advs. (M: 9811595510) versus COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Adv. with Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for R-1 & 2. 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 petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Show Cause Notice dated 6 th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) issued by the Department of Trade & Taxes, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, pertaining to the Financial Year 2018-19, as also the consequent order dated 30th March, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). Further, the petition also challenges Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’). 3. The validity of the impugned notification was under consideration Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10230/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:RAHUL Signing Date:28.07.2025 16:20:42 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. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad challenge to both sets of Notifications is o