Future Art and Display v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 94 & Ors.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner- M/s Future Art & Display through its partner Tariq Ahmad, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, challenging the order dated 25th December, 2023 (hereinafter ‘ impugned order’) passed in respect of F.Y. 2017-18 by the office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/ AVATO, Delhi.

3. Additionally, the present petition also challenges the vires of Notification No.9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March, 2023 and Notification No.9/2023-State Tax dated 22nd June, 2023 (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 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:

Supreme Court vide order dated 21st February, 2025, passed the following order in the said case:

8. The Court has heard ld. Counsels for the parties for a substantial period today. A perusal of the above would show that various High Courts have taken a view and the matter is squarely now pending before the Supreme Court.

9. Apart from the challenge to the notifications itself, various counsels submit that even if the same are upheld, they would still pray for relief for the parties as the Petitioners have been unable to file replies due to several reasons and were unable to avail of personal hearings in most cases. In effect therefore in most cases the adjudication orders are passed ex-parte. Huge demands have been raised and even penalties have been imposed.

10. Broadly, there are six categories of cases which are pending before this Court. While the issue concerning the validity of the impugned notifications is presently under consideration before the Supreme Court, this Court is of the prima facie view that, depending upon the categories of petitions, orders can be passed affording an opportunity to the Petitioners to place their stand before the adjudicating authority. In some cases, proceedings including appellate remedies may be permitted to be pursued by the Petitioners, without delving into the question of the validity of the said notifications at this stage.

11. The said categories and proposed reliefs have been broadly put to the parties today. They may seek instructions and revert by tomorrow i.e., 23rd April, 2025.”

5. Thereafter, on 23rd April, 2025, this Court, having noted that the validity of the impugned notifications is under consideration before the Supreme Court, had disposed of several matters in the said batch of petitions after addressing other factual issues raised in the respective petitions. Additionally, while disposing of the said petitions, this Court clearly observed that the validity of the impugned notifications therein shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No 4240/2025 titled M/s HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

6. However, in cases where the challenge is to the parallel State Notifications, the same have been retained for consideration by this Court. The lead matter in the said batch is W.P.(C) 9214/2024 titled ‘Engineers India Limited v. Union of India & Ors’.

7. In the present case, the submission of the Petitioner on merits is that though he had filed the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 26th September, 2023 (hereinafter ‘SCN’), he was not provided a personal hearing. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and has not at all considered the reply filed by the Petitioner.