Sanjeev Kumar Jain (Dead) Though His Legal Heir Mrs Sapna Jain vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi South And Others
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner sought indulgence for entertaining an appeal physically filed by the legal representatives. The Respondents' counsel stated that the appeal filed by the legal representative of the Petitioner shall be entertained and decided on merits. Consequently, the Court found the present Writ Petition to be rendered infructuous. The Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to make the pre-deposit by way of a Demand Draft in favour of the Appellate Authority. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved based on the Respondent's submission.
Facts
The Petitioner, represented by the legal heir of the deceased Sanjeev Kumar Jain, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The core of the petition was to seek the Court's indulgence in entertaining an appeal that was physically filed by the legal representatives on March 3, 2026. The Respondents' counsel was initially unaware of this development. The Court was informed that the appeal was filed by the legal representative of the deceased Petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain. The amount in dispute is not recorded. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent submission by the Respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain, physically on March 3, 2026, should be entertained by the Appellate Authority? Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner sought the Court's intervention to ensure their appeal, filed physically, is entertained and decided on merits. No specific provision or precedent was cited by the Petitioner's counsel in the provided text. Respondents' contention: The learned counsel representing the Respondents submitted that the appeal filed by the Legal Representative of the Petitioner/Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain shall be entertained and decided on merits. No specific provision or precedent was cited by the Respondents' counsel in the provided text.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
On 07.09.2026, the following order was passed:
“1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner, in substance, seeks indulgence of this Court for entertaining the Appeal preferred by the legal representatives of the Petitioner, which was physically filed on 03.03.2026. 2. Learned counsel representing the Respondents is not aware of the aforesaid development.
List on 09.09.2026 in the Supplementary List.”
Learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the Appeal filed by the Legal Representative of the Petitioner/Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain shall be entertained and decid
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.