SURENDER SINGH CHAHAL vs SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO, WARD 61 & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10th November, 2025. + W.P.(C) 15687/2025 & CM APPL. 64165/2025 SURENDER SINGH CHAHAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Mr. Saket Jain & Mr. Upendra Sah, Advs. (M: 8302439089) versus SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II AVATO, WARD 61 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. Ms. Sangita Malhotra, Adv. for UOI. (M: 8826587368) Mr. Akash Panwar & Ms. Jasleen Kaur Anand, Advs. for R-2 &3. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner - Mr. Surender Singh Chahal has filed the present Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 61, Zone-5, Delhi for the tax period April 2019 to March 2020 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’). 3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of the following notifications: ● Notification No. 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023; and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15687/2025 Page 1 of 9 By:DHIRENDER KUMAR Signing Date:13.11.2025 17:43:23 ● Notification No. 56/2023- State Tax dated 11th July, 2024 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned notifications’). 4. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein, inter alia, the impugned notifications were challenged. W.P.(C) No. 16499/2023 titled DJST Traders Private Limited v. Union of India &Ors was the lead matter 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 he