Giask Traders Pvt. Ltd. Through Director (Sh. Ajay Kumar) v. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/ Avato Ward 45, Zone 3, Delhi

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3864/2025 GIASK TRADERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR (SH. AJAY KUMAR) .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Adv.

versus SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/ AVATO WARD 45, ZONE 3, DELHI .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 27.10.2025 1.

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2.

The Petitioner- Giask Traders Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, permitting the filing of an appeal challenging the order dated 27th April, 2024 passed by the Office of Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO. Vide order dated 27th April, 2024, a demand to the tune of Rs.38,63,921/- has been raised qua the Petitioner on various counts. 3.

The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that the rectification application was also filed on 18th May, 2024 by the Petitioner. The same was rejected vide order dated 31st July, 2024.

4.

The case of the Petitioner is that a reply was actually filed by the Petitioner manually on 27th April, 2024 and the same is on record. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said reply also bears the acknowledgement seal of the Department. But the reply was not considered while passing the impugned order. 5.

Mr. Batra, ld. Counsel for the Respondent, however, submits that no such reply was received by the Department. Mr. Batra, ld. Counsel further relies upon the decision in W.P.(C) 14279/2024 titled M/s Addichem Speciality LLP Vs. Special Commissioner I, Department of Trade and Taxes and Anr. to argue 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 29/10/2025 at 12:39:21

that the delay cannot be condoned.

6.

Heard. A perusal of the reply dated 27th April, 2024 would show that this does bear a seal of the Department and there is no clear explanation forthcoming as to why the Department claims the same as not having been received. Further the same appears to have been filed physically and not online. The fact remains that the reply was not considered and the impugned order has been passed. Thus, there appears to have been a violation of principles of natural justice. 7.

Since the order dated 27th April, 2024 has been passed without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to challenge the impugned order by the way of an appeal. 8.

Accordingly, let the Petitioner file the appeal by 30th November, 2025 along with the requisite pre-deposit. If the same is filed within the said period, it shall be adjudicated in accordance with law, on merits, and shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

9.

In view of the infraction of the principles of natural justice in these unique facts and circumstances, the above directions are passed. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

OCTOBER 27, 2025/pd/ck 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 29/10/2025 at 12:39:21