The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central GST Delhi & Ors [W.P.(C) 9139/2025, order dated August 25, 2025] held that where there is an allegation of impersonation and GSTIN misuse, investigation ought to be conducted by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police, and directed the EOW to submit a status report on the matter.
Facts:
Samyak Jain (“the Petitioner”) was registered under VAT as ‘M/s Samyak International’ and upon transition to GST, was allotted a provisional GST registration which he claims was not sought and that his business was closed from July 28, 2017. Later, the Petitioner discovered that his provisional GSTIN was misused by unknown persons, with fraudulent transactions conducted and a substantial sum of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed and passed on under his firm name.
The Superintendent, Central GST Delhi & Ors (“the Respondents”) raised a demand of over Rs. 48 crores against the Petitioner on the basis of said transactions. The Respondents relied on the premise that, as per their examination, the GST department had jurisdiction to adjudicate frauds under Section 132 of the CGST Act.
The Petitioner contended that none of the transactions forming the basis of the demand had been carried out by him, and his credentials had been impersonated for GSTIN misuse. He sought quashing of the demand order and remedial investigation, asserting that the proper inquiry should be conducted by Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing.
The Respondent contended that, upon receiving complaint from the Petitioner, the matter was forwarded to the GST Department as they believed such issues fall under GST’s jurisdiction, and kept the Petitioner informed.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of demand, the Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court via a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether, in a case of alleged impersonation and GSTIN misuse resulting in fraudulent tax liability, investigation lies within the jurisdiction of the GST Department or the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police, and what procedural directions should be issued?
Held:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 9139/2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the complaint alleges impersonation of Petitioner’s credentials and misuse of GSTIN by unknown third persons and none of the disputed transactions were conducted by the Petitioner.
- Noted that, the Economic Offences Wing had initially only forwarded the complaint to the GST Department without further action, reflecting misunderstanding regarding jurisdiction and investigative powers.
- Held that, in circumstances involving impersonation and fraud on taxpayer identity, the Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”) is the appropriate agency to investigate the matter, not merely pass it on to the GST Department.
- Directed the EOW to actively investigate the complaint and take action as deemed fit, to file a fresh status report to the Court, and that the GST authorities cooperate by forwarding all relevant documents; listed for next hearing on November 12, 2025.
- Clarified that, the Petitioner may pursue appellate remedies in GST but appeal should not be dismissed on grounds of limitation in view of the ongoing investigation.
Our Comments:
The Court’s ruling reflects a practical approach to the intersection of economic crime and GST administration. Jurisdictional disputes often arise in cases where GSTINs are misused, but the High Court rightly emphasized that impersonation is a criminal offence requiring police investigation, per Section 463/468/471 IPC and Section 132 CGST Act.
This aligns with the precedent of Gurjant Singh v. Union of India[W.P.(C) 5659/2025 order dated August 11, 2025], where the Delhi High Court allowed a review petition for reopening dismissed writ on limited scope of GSTIN misuse investigation. The underlying principle is that tax authorities must not penalize taxpayers where criminal impersonation and identity theft are proven; procedural fairness demands full police inquiry prior to adjudication of liability.
Conversely, if no impersonation is found, GST authorities can proceed under Section 132 or 73/74 CGST Act. This clarifies parallel jurisdiction and avoids miscarriage of justice in technical fraud cases. The distinction between tax fraud by the registered person and fraud/impersonation committed by third parties must be maintained for fair adjudication.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 132, CGST Act 2017 – Punishment for certain offences:
“Whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences, namely
Whoever commits any of the following offences, namely:-
(a) supplies any goods or services or both without issue of any invoice, in violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, with the intention to evade tax;
(b) issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax;
(c) avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b);…”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
