Nafis Ahmed vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Feb 02, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1255430

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1255430
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre
Decided On: Feb 02, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/1455/2026
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nafis Ahmed

Advocate Mr. Lalitendra Gulani, Mr. Mohit Pugalia, Mr. Tanuj Kumar Takkar, Ms. Gayatri Srivastava

Respondent

Superintendent of Central Tax & Anr.

Advocate Mr. Shubham Tyagi, Ms. Navruti Ojha, Mr. Rishabh Chauhan

Excerpt

$~45 * in the high court of delhi at new delhi + w.p.(c) 1455/2026 nafis ahmed .....petitioner through: mr. lalitendra gulani, mr. mohit pugalia, mr. tanuj kumar takkar, ms. gayatri srivastava, advs.versussuperintendent of central tax & anr. .....respondents through: mr. shubham tyagi ssc, cbic with ms. navruti ojha, mr. rishabh chauhan, advs.coram: hon'ble mr. justice nitin wasudeo sambre hon'ble mr. justice ajay digpaul order % 17.02.2026cm appl. 10918/2026 (fresh by petr. for clarification of order dt. 02.02.2026) 1. the present writ was disposed vide order dated 02nd february 2026. 2. the petitioner has sought clarification of the same as according to him, though, the appeal is preferred against the tax liability, the interest and the penalty, he has already discharged the tax liability. 3. in such an eventuality, drawing support from the sub-clause (b) of sub-section 6 of section 107 and proviso thereto, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he is not liable to make any pre-deposit, even if, he is challenging the liability of tax, penalty and interest. he would claimthis 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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:07 that a pre-deposit to the extent of 10% of the same of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the order under appeal is provided as against which he has discharged the liability of tax by depositing the same. 4. at the request of the counsel for the respondent, list on 26th february 2026.nitin wasudeo sambre, jajay digpaul, j february 17, 2026/sky/okthis 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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:07

Full Judgment

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1455/2026 NAFIS AHMED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalitendra Gulani, Mr. Mohit Pugalia, Mr. Tanuj Kumar Takkar, Ms. Gayatri Srivastava, Advs.

versus

SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC, CBIC with Ms. Navruti Ojha, Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER % 17.02.2026

CM APPL. 10918/2026 (fresh by petr. for clarification of order dt. 02.02.2026) 1. The present writ was disposed vide order dated 02nd February 2026. 2. The petitioner has sought clarification of the same as according to him, though, the appeal is preferred against the tax liability, the interest and the penalty, he has already discharged the tax liability. 3. In such an eventuality, drawing support from the Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section 6 of Section 107 and proviso thereto, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that he is not liable to make any pre-deposit, even if, he is challenging the liability of tax, penalty and interest. He would claim

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:07 that a pre-deposit to the extent of 10% of the same of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the order under appeal is provided as against which he has discharged the liability of tax by depositing the same. 4. At the request of the counsel for the respondent, list on 26th February 2026.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

AJAY DIGPAUL, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/sky/ok

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Nafis Ahmed vs Superintendent of Central Tax & Anr. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Nitin Wa...