The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. S.R. Enterprises v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 685, 1314, 2461 and 2867/2025 dated May 29, 2025] dismissed the four writ petitions filed by GST registered entities after discovering that the petitions were based on forged Aadhaar cards, fabricated Show Cause Notice (“SCNs”), and fictitious identities. The Court directed registration of the First Information Report (“FIR”) under multiple penal provisions and mandated verification protocols for future GST litigation to avoid such gross abuse of process.
Facts:
M/s S.R Enterprises (“the Petitioner”) filed 4 writ petitions. Each Petition was supported by Show Cause Notice dated November 7, 2024, October 16, 2024, September 27, 2024, and February 6, 2025 (“the Impugned SCNs”). The main allegation in the petitions was that the SCNs did not mention any reasons, based on which the GST registrations of the Petitioners were cancelled.
The predecessor bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, placed reliance on the SCNs and the decision in the case of Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises v. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST) [W.P (C) 8061/2024 dated September 25, 2024] wherein the cancellation orders of GST registration were set aside, on the premise that the SCNs were without reasons. It was obviously presumed that the SCNs were filed along with the genuine writs.
On April 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court while hearing W.P.(C) 2461/2025, was informed by the Respondent that there are three more SCNs which were challenged in three separate writ petitions, where a similar fabrication has come to the knowledge of the Department. Subsequently, the Court directed that the final order dated February 27, 2025 shall be recalled and order giving effect to the said order shall also not be given effect to.
Thereafter, all the 4 writ petitions were taken up together on April 29, 2025, wherein the Petitioners did not contact their counsels.
On May 20, 2024, all the four petitions were taken up together and the Court received the reports as directed in the previous orders. Later, the individuals were found to be untraceable or falsely identified.
Consequently, the Court directed the Oath Commissioner, Ms. Shilpa Verma shall physically appear before the Court on the next date of hearing along with her original register for the following dates i.e., January 17, 2025, January 31, 2025, February 24, 2025 and March 4, 2025. She shall also place on record a short affidavit as to the manner in which she attested the affidavits.
Since the Aadhaar card copies were given by the Petitioner, notice was issued to the UIDAI to place on record the details available with the UIDAI in respect of the said Aadhaar cards, as it clearly appeared that something was a miss.
On May 28, 2025, except one person, Mr. Aman, no one else was traceable. Inspector had appeared before the Court and placed on record that the Aadhaar Card was in the name of one Mr. Aman, who works as a domestic help and resides in the quarters attached to the official quarters of an official of the Indian Air Force. The Court noticed that the photograph of this individual did not match with the photograph in the Aadhaar Card handed over the Petitioner.
It was also stated that M/s Compact Enterprises has a bank account with Yes Bank in which a total sum of Rs. 19,40,14,606/- had been credited from January 1, 2025 to April 30, 2025. Inspector Neeraj Kumar had also recorded the statements of Ms. Chandni Malu and her father i.e. Mr. Laxmikant Malu, who had rented their premises to the M/s Compact Enterprises. The said persons in their statement recorded by Inspector Neeraj Kumar stated that Mr. Aman very rarely visited the said premises.
The Inspector, during the course of investigation, visited the residential quarters of Mr. Aman where he met his family. During the said visit, statement of Mr. Aman’s brother i.e. Mr. Atul was recorded wherein he has stated that no case has been filed on behalf of his brother for M/s Compact Enterprises in the Delhi High Court.
The Oath Commissioner, Ms. Shilpa Verma produced the registers for various dates as directed vide order dated May 20, 2025. According to Ms. Verma, there is usually a large crowd in her office and therefore, she is unable to recall as to whether any of the Petitioners had appeared before her or not.
Moreover, on the last date, Learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of India had filed a report on behalf of the Unique Identification Authority of India (“UIDAI”). Mr. Aditya Singla, Mr. Aakash Pawar, Learned Counsels for the Respondent had also handed over reports in all the four cases received from the GST Department.
The Court based on these reports, directed to produce Mr. Aman in Court.
Mr. Sahib Alam, the proprietor of the M/s Royal Enterprises was produced before the court and stated that he came in touch with Mr. Rajat, who is a scrap dealer in Ghaziabad. Mr. Rajat offered him a job for managing entry and exit of vehicles. Under the pretext of giving Mr. Alam employment, his Adhaar Card and Pan Card were taken by Mr. Rajat. He was also made to open a bank account in Jammu and Kashmir Bank, however, the details of the same were not known to him. Although, after Mr. Alam had given his PAN Card and Adhaar Card to Mr. Rajat, no employment was offered by him to Mr. Hence, though the Aadhaar Card number and other details are the same, the photograph is different. Mr. Alam does not recognize the person in the said photograph. Hence, the Aadhaar Cards which have been filed are forged and fabricated. This fact is also confirmed by the officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“DGGI”).
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether the GST registration with fabricated documents is maintainable?
Held:
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) 2867/2025 held as under:
- Directed that, the seriousness of the matter requires registration of a FIR. The DGGI officials shall, within one week conduct thorough investigation and file a complaint with the Crime Branch, Delhi Police who shall then register an FIR forthwith. Further, directed that the present order be communicated to the Law Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi as also to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Union of India for considering whether taking of photographs ought to be insisted upon when affidavits are attested by the Oath Commissioner and Notaries, so as to ensure physical presence of deponents. The court also directed that in future, when GST matters are filed, Learned Counsels shall take some precautionary measures to ensure that the documents that are attached are not forged and fabricated and some verification through the GST portal is done to ensure the veracity of the documents. The Court also recalled the two orders dated February 3, 2025 and February 27, 2025 and March 6, 2025.
- Held that, the affidavits as also the documents including the SCNs in the present matter are forged and the persons i.e. Petitioners are fictitious, it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry ought to be conducted for the offences of forgery, fabrication, etc. Accordingly, the Registrar General is directed to lodge a complaint against all the Petitioners under Section 215 read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“the BNSS”) for offences under Sections 227, 228, 229, 233, 236, 237, 246, 336(1) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“the BNS”). Hence, the 4 petitions were dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.
Our Comments:
In the case of Suresh Kumar Chaudhary vs. Assistant Commissioner [Mat No. 2012 of 2023 January 09, 2024] the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that at the time when registration was obtained, the Assessee had uploaded forged electricity receipt and rental agreement. Therefore, Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing appeal of Assessee and there was no ground to interfere with same and writ petition was to be dismissed.
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.
