Dismissed¶19

Fab India Trading Company v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/10673/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fab India Trading Company v. Union of India and Ors.; W.P.(C) 10673/2025 & CM APPL. 44143/2025; High Court of Delhi; Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain; decided 14.11.2025; writ petition dismissed on maintainability/locus standi; petitioner firm represented by Sameer Bansal; Retirement and Admission Deed dated 03.11.2022; Ashish Kumar Mehta and Vidya Mehta retired; Kapil Goel admitted; reply to Show Cause Notice dated 27.01.2025 signed by retired partner; impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.02.2025; demand of Rs. 3,77,02,168/-; liberty to avail other remedies in law.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of; liberty granted to the Petitioner to avail any other remedies available in law. ¶19

Fab India Trading Company Vs Union of India and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10673/2025 & CM APPL. 44143/2025 FAB INDIA TRADING COMPANY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC (9999388384) Mr. Sumit K. Batra & Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advs. (9911211000)

¶4

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶5

O R D E R

¶6

% 14.11.2025

¶7

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶8

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.

¶9

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:

¶10

“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.

¶11

5. Responding to the same, id. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Mr. Ashish Mehta and Ms. Vidya Mehta have resigned from their respective positions.

¶12

6. However, Id. Counsel for the Petitioner who is

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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

¶15

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.”

¶16

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 3^rd November, 2022. The same is on a stamp paper issued on 18^th 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.

¶17

Even if the said deed is taken as correct, there is no explanation as to how reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 20^th November, 2024, is dated 27^th 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 3^rd 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.

¶18

Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to entertain the matter in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

¶19

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.

¶20

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶21

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶22

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/ kk/msh

¶23

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

Fab India Trading Company v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fab India Trading Company v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S S Bhankers Assocation and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Srinivasan Ramanathan (Retd)

Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramu Vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

P.C.Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Jawahar Lal Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

M/S Anant Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Force NO.0583941 Satbir Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sikandar Khan Vs the Commissioner of Custom & Ors.

Bird Delhi General Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., Earlier Known as Bird Execujet Airport Services Pvt. Vs Sales Tax Officer II Avato, Ward 204, Zone 11 & Ors.

Myratgeldi Mammedov Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Chauhan Kirana Trading through Its Proprietor, Sultan Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Commissioner of State Taxes & Anr.

Anoop Kumar Garg Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

Sunita Rani (Wife of Late. Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Proprietor of M/S. Meenakshi Geotech) Vs Union of India & Ors.