MANOJ KUMAR AKHRIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 9th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 13792/2025&CM APPL. 56600/2025 MANOJ KUMAR AKHRIA PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHUBHAM ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Bhatia, Ms. AamnayaJagannath Mishra, Mr., Abhinav Sharde, Ms. Anu Aggarwal & Mr. Keshav Garg, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv. Mr. Prakash Singh Negi, Mr. Prakash Sharma & Mohd. Naved, Advs. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN 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 Articles under 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 18th February, 2025 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the Office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO for the Financial Year 2020-21 raising a demand of Rs.1,51,53,659.00/-. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that a certain part of the demand relates to Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, ‘ITC’) claimed from cancelled dealers and therefore, there is a challenge to Section 16(2)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, ‘CGST Act’) as well. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SUNITA W.P.(C) 13792/2025 Page 1 of 3 KUMARI Signing Date:11.09.2025 03:13:57 4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this matter may be clubbed with W.P. (C) 6293/2019titled‘Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.’, where a similar challenge has been raised. 5. Mr. Batra, ld. Counsel points out that out of the entire demand, the demand in respect of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act would be only Rs. 7,07,060/- in respect of ITC claimed from cancelled dealers, return defaulters and tax non-payers. Ld. Counsel sub