Delhi High Court · 2025-05-15
KRISHNA TRADERS vs GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-6494/2025 2025:DHC:3985-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- KRISHNA TRADERS
- Respondent
- GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 15th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6494/2025 & CM APPL. 29589/2025 KRISHNA TRADERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr.M.A. Ansari and Ms.Tabbassum Firdause, Advocates. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jai Ahuja, Advocates Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for R-4/UOI 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, inter alia, challenging the following - (i) summary of Show Cause Notice in form DRC-01 dated 15th December 2023, (hereinafter, ‘the impugned SCN’); and (ii) the summary order dated 29th April, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 32, Zone 1, Delhi (hereinafter ‘Respondent-Department’) under Section 73 of the Delhi/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide which a demand to the tune of Rs. 1,53,66,782/- has been confirmed. 3. This petition also challenges Notification Nos.56/2023-State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 and Notification Nos.56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th Signature Not Verified Signed By:DEVANSHU W.P.(C) 6494/2025 Page 1 of 7 JOSHI Signing Date:19.05.2025 20:11:02 December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notifications’); 4. The impugned notifications were under consideration before this Court in a batch of matters with the lead matter being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. On the last date of hearing i.e., 22rd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the im