Shakuntlam Associates Through Its Proprietor Mr Ashok Aggarwal vs. Goods And Services Tax Council Through The Secretary GST Council Secretariat & Ors.

Facts

A batch of writ petitions, including W.P.(C) 5902/2026, W.P.(C) 2195/2026, W.P.(C) 2655/2026, W.P.(C) 12802/2026, W.P.(C) 3220/2026, W.P.(C) 3229/2026, W.P.(C) 4382/2026, W.P.(C) 12169/2026, W.P.(C) 12468/2026, W.P.(C) 14357/2026, and W.P.(C) 14401/2026, were filed before the Delhi High Court. The petitioners were various entities and individuals, including Jitin Batra, Rachit Enterprises, M/s Cresent Stationers, M/s S M Agri Exports Private Limited, Reliable Accessories Private Limited, Shakuntlam Associates, Drum Roll Advertising Private Limited, ASA Corporate Catalyst India Private Limited, Global Enterprises, and MBD Alchemie Private Limited. The respondents included Sales Tax Officers, the Union of India, the Commissioner of DGST, and the Goods and Services Tax Council. The specific tax periods and amounts in dispute are not detailed in this order.

Held

The Court held that all the aforementioned writ petitions could be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) 892/2025, titled K.S. Impex Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Anr., which was decided on April 23, 2025. This decision was based on the consensus arrived at by the learned counsel representing all the parties. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the specific facts or legal arguments of each individual writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that when parties in multiple writ petitions agree to be bound by a prior judgment on similar issues, the Court can dispose of the pending petitions in terms of that precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of all the listed writ petitions in accordance with the aforementioned judgment.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the Court was how to adjudicate the numerous writ petitions filed by various petitioners against GST authorities. The Court had to decide whether to hear each petition on its merits or to follow a precedent. The petitioners, represented by their respective counsels, and the respondents, including GST authorities and the Union of India, were present. The parties reached a consensus on the procedure to be followed. The Court needed to determine if a prior judgment could be applied to all these pending writ petitions, thereby avoiding individual adjudication of each case. The specific legal questions and arguments for each petitioner are not elaborated as the parties agreed to a common disposal method.