WALAITI RAM ASHOK KUMAR vs COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25th September, 2025 + W.P.(C) 14953/2025 & CM APPL. 61524/2025 WALAITI RAM ASHOK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia & Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 61524/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 14953/2025 3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the impugned order dated 28th August, 2024 passed by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’) for the Financial Year 2019-20. 4. The present petition further challenges the vires of Notifications No. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 14953/2025 Page 1 of 7 Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:29.09.2025 16:04:43 notification’). 5. The challenge in the present petition is similar to a batch of petitions wherein inter alia, the impugned notification was 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 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