M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~107 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 6th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 16514/2024 & CM APPL. 69757/2024 M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashish Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel for R-1. 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– M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31st August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’). 3. The petition also challenges the vires of Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’). 4. 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 the said batch of petitions, on 22nd April, 2025, the parties were heard at length qua the validity of the impugned notifications and accordingly, the following order was passed: “4. Submissions have been heard in part. The broad Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C) 16514/2024 Page 1 of 7 DHYANI Signing Date:14.05.2025 16:19:44 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 extending deadlines. In respect of Notification no.9, the recommendation was made prior to the issuance of the