M/S OJAS ADVERTISING vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 61 & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~120 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 6829/2025 & CM APPL. 30970/2025 M/S OJAS ADVERTISING .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Adv. versus SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 61 & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. for R-1 & 4 (M: 9911211000) 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 Ojas Advertising under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 24th May, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the SCN’) for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020, as also the consequent order dated 17th 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 as also the 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 of petitions with the lead petition being W.P.(C) 16499/2023 titled ‘DJST Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.’. In Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 6829/2025 Page 1 of 8 Signing Date:22.05.2025 01:16:13 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 challenge to both sets of Notifications is on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the sam