TEK XPLORE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS. RENUKA MAINI vs THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 6th May, 2025 + W.P.(C) 12893/2024 & CM APPL. 53741/2024 TEK XPLORE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MS. RENUKA MAINI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anurag Soan, Adv. versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. K.G. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Nisha Mohandas, Advs. 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 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner-Tek Xplore through its Proprietor Ms. Renuka Maini inter alia challenging Show Cause Notice dated 29th May, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned SCN’) and order dated 28th August, 2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by Respondent No.2 - Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 70, Zone 4, Delhi. 3. It additionally challenges the vires of Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter ‘CGST Act’) and Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 12893/2024 Page 1 of 7 Signing Date:14.05.2025 12:14:07 Notification 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘impugned notification’) 4. The impugned notification was 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 22rd 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 on the ground that the proper procedure was not followed prior to the issuance of the same. In terms of Section