Fab INDIA Trading Company vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Fab India Trading Company, challenged an Order-in-Original dated February 26, 2025, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,77,02,168/-. During the proceedings, the Respondent-Delhi GST Department raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of Mr. Sameer Bansal, who filed the petition, as the partners of the Petitioner firm were stated to be Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta. The Petitioner's counsel contended that Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta had resigned. The Court noted that a 'Retirement and Admission Deed' dated November 3, 2022, indicated the retirement of Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta and Mrs. Vidya Mehta, and the admission of Mr. Sameer Bansal and Mr. Kapil Goel as partners. However, the reply to the Show Cause Notice dated November 20, 2024, was dated January 27, 2025, and bore the signature of Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta as a partner, despite his alleged retirement in 2022.
Held
The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the matter in exercise of its writ jurisdiction due to significant discrepancies regarding the locus standi of the petitioner. While the Petitioner presented a 'Retirement and Admission Deed' dated November 3, 2022, suggesting the retirement of Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta and Mrs. Vidya Mehta and the admission of Mr. Sameer Bansal and Mr. Kapil Goel, a crucial inconsistency was noted. The reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated January 27, 2025, bore the signature of Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta as a partner. This contradicted the retirement deed, as Mr. Mehta had allegedly retired in November 2022 and could not have signed on behalf of the firm in 2025. The Court found these discrepancies to be substantial, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The Petitioner was granted liberty to avail any other remedies available in law.
Key Issues
1. Whether Mr. Sameer Bansal has the locus standi to file the present writ petition on behalf of the Petitioner firm, M/s. Fab India Trading Company, challenging the Order-in-Original dated February 26, 2025, given the purported retirement of the erstwhile partners and admission of new partners? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta had resigned from their positions as partners. They relied on a 'Retirement and Admission Deed' dated November 3, 2022, to establish that Mr. Sameer Bansal and Mr. Kapil Goel became partners with 50% shares. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent-Delhi GST Department raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, questioning the locus standi of Mr. Sameer Bansal to file the petition, as the partners were stated to be Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta. The Department also highlighted a discrepancy where the reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated January 27, 2025, was signed by Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta, who had allegedly retired in November 2022.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 14.11.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26th February, 2025, whereby a demand of Rs. 3,77,02,168/- has been confirmed against the Petitioner.
On 24th July, 2025, ld. Counsel for the Department had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present petition. The relevant portion of the same is as under:
“4. Mr. Batra, Id. Counsel for the Respondent-Delhi GST Department has pointed out that the partners of the Petitioner Firm as on date are Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta, however, the petition has been filed by one Mr. Sameer Bansal. Thereby, Mr. Batra raises a preliminary objection to the locus standi of Mr. Sameer Bansal in filing the present petition.
Responding to the same, id. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta have resigned from their respective positions.
However, Id. Counsel for the Petitioner who is 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 19/11/2025 at 12:45:36
trying to argue virtually is unable to hear the Court properly. Therefore, Id. Counsel is requested to appear physically on the next date of hearing and clarify the locus of Sameer Bansal.”
Today, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to explain the locus of Mr. Sameer Bansal by relying upon a ‘Retirement and Admission Deed’ dated 3rd November, 2022. The same is on a stamp paper issued on 18th December 2020. As per this deed, the two partners Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta and Mrs. Vidya Mehta have retired and Mr. Sameer Bansal and Mr. Kapil Goel now have 50% shares in the partnership firm M/s. Fab India Trading Company i.e., the Petitioner.
Even if the said deed is taken as correct, there is no explanation as to how reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 20th November, 2024, is dated 27th January, 2025 and the same bears the signature of Mr. Ashish Kumar Mehta, as a partner of the Petitioner Firm. From the partnership Retirement deed, Mr. Mehta had retired as of 3rd November 2022. He could not have signed on behalf of the firm thereafter, that too in 2025. There appears to be various discrepancies in the matter.
Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to entertain the matter in exercise of its writ juri iction.
The petition is dismissed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. If any other remedies are available in law for the Petitioner, liberty to avail the same is granted. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2025/kk/msh 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 19/11/2025 at 12:45:36
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.