M/SSAUBHAGYAENTERPRISES v. THECOMMISSIONEROFCENTRALGOODSANDSERVICESTAX,DELHI-WEST
Judgment
$~20*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C)798/2025M/SSAUBHAGYAENTERPRISES.....PetitionerThrough:Mr.ParmeetSingh, Ms.Tanya&Mr.ChetanArora, Advs.versusTHECOMMISSIONEROFCENTRALGOODSANDSERVICESTAX,DELHI-WEST.....RespondentThrough:None.CORAM:JUSTICEPRATHIBAM.SINGHJUSTICESHAILJAINORDER%18.09.20251.Thishearinghasbeendonethroughhybridmode.2.Thepresentpetitionhasbeenfiledchallengingtheimpugnedorderdated24thDecember,2023passedbytheDelhiGoodsandServicesTaxDepartment. VidetheimpugnedorderademandofRs.58,78,656/-hasbeenraisedagainstthePetitioner.3.On11thFebruary,2025,whenthematterwasfirsttakenupforhearing, theCourthadobservedasunder:“Werequestlearnedcounselforthewritpetitionertoattendtotheofficeobjectionswhichhavebeenpointedoutandtoensurethattheamendedmemoisplacedonourrecord. Letthewritpetitionbecalledagainon18.03.2025.”4.Thereafter, on18thMarch,2025theCourthadobservedasunder:“Sincepartieshavefailedtocomplywiththeearlierdirectionsissued, letthematterbeplacedbeforetheconcernedRegistraron22.04.2025.” This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2025 at 12:22:26
#5. InthismattervariousobjectionshavebeenraisedbytheRegistryastheamendedmemoofpartieswaslyingunderobjections. DespitetherepeatedopportunitiesprovidedtothePetitioner, thedirectionspassedbythisCourthavenotbeencompliedwithbythePetitioner.6.TheCourthasperusedthepetitionwhichwouldalsoshowthattheimpugnedorderwaspassedon24thDecember,2023,however, thePetitionerhasmerelyplacedthesummaryoftheimpugnedorderinFORMDRC-07onrecord. Thedetailedorderhasnotbeenfiled. Evenalongwiththeshowcausenoticedated25thSeptember,2025merelythesummaryofthesameinFORMDRC-01hasbeenplacedonrecordandnotthecompletenotice.7.AnapplicationforrectificationhadbeenfiledbythePetitioneragainsttheimpugnedorder, whichhasalsobeenrejectedon29thJuly,2024.8.Thus, noneofthematerialparticularswhicharerequiredhavebeenattachedwiththepetition.9.Today, adjournmentissoughtonbehalfofthePetitioner.10.Inviewoftherepeatedadjournmentswhichhavebeensoughtandtheproperdocumentationhavingnotbeenfiled, despiterepeatedopportunities, thepetitionisdismissedfornon-prosecution. Libertytofilewithbetterdocumentationandparticulars.11.Pendingapplications, ifany, arealsodisposedof.PRATHIBAM.SINGH,J.SHAILJAIN,J.SEPTEMBER18,2025dj/msh
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.