Delhi High Court · 2025-07-18
SHIVAM POLYCHEM vs THE COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-10222/2025 2025:DHC:5916-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SHIVAM POLYCHEM
- Respondent
- THE COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th July, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10222/2025 & CM APPLs. 42449/2025, 42450/2025 SHIVAM POLYCHEM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Praveen Kumar Gambhir, Advs. (M: 9811595510) versus THE COMMISSIONER DELHI GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Adv. with Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for R-1 & 2. Ms. Namrah Nasir, Adv. for R-3 &4. (M: 9971105390) 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 18 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 5th April, 2024 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10222/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:24.07.2025 18:12:47 11th July, 2024, and Notification No.09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 (hereinafter ‘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 ac