Delhi High Court
M/S S R Enterprises vs Pr. Commissioner Of Goods And Service ... on 29 May, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~95 to 98
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29th May, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 685/2025
M/S S R ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Fardeen Khan, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Mr. Rubinder Ghumman &
Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
PR. COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, EAST
DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates.
Mr. Sushil Raaja, Advocate. M-
9212717171.
Insp. Vipin Yadav, PS Karol Bagh.
Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State.
96
+ W.P.(C) 1314/2025
M/S TRIX INDIA SALES CORPORATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Fardeen Khan, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Mr. Rubinder Ghumman &
Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
EAST DELHI
Through: Mr. Sushil Raaja, Advocate. M-
9212717171.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates.
Insp. Vipin Yadav, PS Karol Bagh.
Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the
State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C) 685/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 26
DHYANI
Signing Date:02.06.2025
18:40:06
97
+ W.P.(C) 2461/2025 & CM APPL. 22018/2025
M/S ROYAL ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Fardeen Khan, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Mr. Rubinder Ghumman &
Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
EAST DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Akash Panwar, Jr. Standing
Counsel.
Mr. Sushil Raaja, Advocate. M-
9212717171.
Insp. Anand Kumar, SI Ravi Poonia,
PS Dagalpur.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates.
Insp. Vipin Yadav, PS Karol Bagh.
Mr. Fajallu Rehman, Mr. Feroz Alam
& Mr. Yasser Shabir Chowdhary,
Advocates.
Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the
State.
98
+ W.P.(C) 2867/2025
M/S COMPACT ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Advocate.
Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Fardeen Khan, Mr. Harsh
Vardhan, Mr. Rubinder Ghumman &
Ms. Rashmi Srivastava, Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
EAST DELHI .....Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NAMITA W.P.(C) 685/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 26
DHYANI
Signing Date:02.06.2025
18:40:06
Through: Mr. Sushil Raaja, Advocate. M-
9212717171.
Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Ms. Arya Suresh Nair, Advocates.
Insp. Neeraj Kumar, PS Shahdra, M-
8010126421.
Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present four petitions have been filed by the Petitioners under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the following
Show Cause Notices (hereinafter, 'SCNs') and orders for cancellation of GST
registration:
(i) W.P. (C) 685/2025- Show Cause Notice dated 7th November, 2024
issued by Keshari Nandan Shrivastwa, Superintendent, Range-137, CGST,
East Delhi, as also the consequent order for cancellation of GST registration
dated 23rd November 2024.
(ii) W.P. (C) 1314/2025- Show Cause Notice dated 16th October, 2024
issued by Ajay Kumar, Superintendent, Range-136, CGST, East Delhi, as also
the consequent order for cancellation of GST registration dated 29th October
2024.
(iii) W.P. (C) 2461/2025- Show Cause Notice dated 27th September, 2024
issued by Ajay Kumar, Superintendent, Range-136, CGST, East Delhi, as also
the consequent order for cancellation of GST registration dated 22nd October
2024.
(iv) W.P. (C) 2867/2025- Show Cause Notice dated 6th February, 2025
issued by Ranjeet Kumar Sharma, Superintendent, Range-142, CGST, East
Delhi, as also the consequent order for cancellation of GST registration dated
2nd March 2025.
Factual Background
3. These four petitions were filed along with copies of purported SCNs
dated 7th November 2024, 16th October 2024, 27th September 2024, and 6th
February 2025 respectively.
4. 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.
5. The predecessor bench of this Court, placing reliance on the SCNs and
the decision in W.P (C) 8061/2024 dated 25 September 2024 titled 'Riddhi
Siddhi Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax (CGST),
South Delhi & Anr.', set aside the cancellation orders of GST registration of
the Petitioners on the premise that the SCNs were issued without reasons. The
said order dated 27th February 2025 in W.P.(C) 2461/2025 by way of a sample
order, is extracted below:
'1. The writ petitioner assails the validity of the final
order dated 22 October 2024 in terms of which its
Goods and Services Tax registration came to be
cancelled with retrospective effect from 25 November
2021.
2. It becomes pertinent to note that the proceedings had
come to be initiated pursuant to a Show Cause Notice
dated 27 September 2024. That notice embodied no
intent or disclosure of the respondents contemplating
cancellation from a retrospective date.
3. We bad in this regard and bearing in mind the power
which Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 20173 confers upon the respondents to cancel
registration from a retrospective date, in Riddhi Siddhi
Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Goods and Services
Tax (CGST), South Delhi & Anr held as follows:
"5. As is manifest from a reading of Section 29,
clauses (a) to (e) of Section 29 (2) constitute
independent limbs on the basis of which a
registration may warrant cancellation. While the
provision does enable the respondents to cancel
that registration with retrospective effect. The
mere existence or conferral of that power would
not justify a revocation of registration. The order
under Section 29(2) must itself reflect the reasons
which may have weighed upon the respondents to
cancel registration with retrospective effect. Given
the deleterious consequences which would ensue
and accompany a retroactive cancellation makes it
all the more vital that the order be reasoned and
demonstrative of due application of mind. It is also
necessary to observe that the mere existence of
such a power would not in itself be sufficient to
sustain its invocation. What we seek to emphasise
is that the power to cancel retrospectively can
neither be robotic nor routinely applied unless
circumstances so warrant. When tested on the
aforesaid precepts it becomes ex facie evident that
the impugned order of cancellation cannot be
sustained.
6. We note that while dealing with the right of the
respondents to cancel GST registration with
retrospective effect and the manner in which such
power should be exercised in accordance with the
statutory scheme was an issue which was noticed
in Ramesh Chander vs Assistant Commissioner of
Goods and Services Tax, Dwarka Division, CGST
Delhi & Anr. The Court in Ramesh Chander taking
note of the contours of Section 29 had held:-
" 1.The petitioner impugns order in appeal
dated 29.12.2023, whereby the appeal filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed solely on the
ground of limitation. Petitioner had filed the
appeal impugning order dated 13.07.2022
whereby the GST registration of the petitioner
was cancelled retrospectively with effect from
01.07.2017. Petitioner also impugns Show
Cause Notice dated 07.04.2022.
2. Vide impugned Show Cause Notice dated
07.04.2022, petitioner was called upon to show
cause as to why the registration be not
cancelled for the following reasons:
"Any Taxpayer other than composition
taxpayer has not filed returns for a continuous
period of six months"
3. Petitioner was in the business of services
involving repair, alterations, additions,
replacements, renovation, maintenance or
remodelling of the building covered above,
General construction services of harbours,
waterways, dams, water mains and lines,
irrigation and other waterworks, General
construction services of long-distance
underground/ overland/ submarine pipelines,
communication and electric power lines bv
(cables); pumping stations and related works;
transformer stations and related works,
General construction services of local water &
sewage pipelines, electricity and
communication cables & related works,
Installation, assembly and erection services of
other prefabricated structures and
constructions and possessed a GST
registration.
4. A show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 07.04.2022 Though the notice
does not specify any cogent reason, there is an
observation in the notice stating failure to
furnish returns for a continuous period of six
months. The show cause notice requires the
petitioner to appear before the undersigned i.e.
authority issuing the notice. Notice does not
give the name of the officer or place or time
where the petitioner has to appear.
5. Further the order dated 13.07.2022 passed
on the show cause notice does not give any
reasons for cancellation of the registration. It,
however, states that the registration is liable to
be cancelled for the following reason "whereas
no reply to notice to show cause has been
submitted". However, the said order in itself is
contradictory, the order states "reference to
your reply dated 16.04.2022 in response to the
notice to show cause dated 07.04.2022" and the
reason stated for cancellation is "whereas no
reply to notice to show cause has been
submitted". The order further states that
effective date of cancellation of registration is
01.07.2017 i.e. retrospective date.
6. Neither the show cause notice, nor the order
spell out the reasons for retrospective
cancellation. In fact, in our view, order dated
13.07.2022 does not qualify as an order of
cancellation of registration.
7. As per the petitioner, the said order reflected
that the GST of the Petitioner stands cancelled
from 0 1.07.2017 even though returns
thereafter have been filed by the Petitioner.
8. We notice that the show cause notice as well
as the impugned order of cancellation. are
themselves vitiated on account of lack of
reason and clarity. The appeal has been
dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.
Since the very foundation of entire proceedings
i.e. show cause notice and the order of
cancellation are vitiated. we are of the view
that no purpose would be served in relegating
the petitioner to the stage of an appeal.
9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the proper
officer may cancel the GST registration of a
person from such date including any
retrospective date, as he may deem fit if the
circumstances set out in the said sub-section
are satisfied. The registration cannot be
cancelled with retrospective effect
mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the
proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such
satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be
based on some objective criteria. Merely.
because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for
some period does not mean that the taxpayer's
registration is required to be cancelled with
retrospective date also covering the period
when the returns were filed and the taxpayer
was compliant.
10. It is important to note that, according to the
respondent, one of the consequences for
cancelling a taxpayer's registration with
retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's
customers are denied the input tax credit
availed in respect of the supplies made by the
tax payer during such period. Although, we do
not consider it apposite to examine this aspect
but assuming that the respondent's contention
in this regard is correct, it would follow that
the proper officer is also required to consider
this aspect while passing any order for
cancellation of GST registration with
retrospective effect. Thus. a taxpayer's
registration can be cancelled with
retrospective effect only where such
consequences are intended and are warranted.
11. The show cause notice does not even state
that the registration is liable to be cancelled
from a retrospective date.
12. The petition is allowed. The impugned show
cause notice dated 07.04.2022, order of
cancellation dated 13.07.2022 and the order in
appeal dated 29.12.2023 are accordingly set
aside. GST registration of the petitioner is
restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite
returns upto date.
13. It is clarified that since the petitioner could
not have filed the return after the GST
registration was suspended, there shall be no
liability to pay any penalty or fine for delayed
filing. However, this would only apply in case
petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking that
petitioner has not carried out any 23 business
or raised invoices or taken any Input Tax
Credit after the registration was suspended
with effect from 07.04.2022 i.e., the date of
suspension of the registration.
14. Respondent would be at liberty to initiate
appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law after giving a proper show cause notice
containing complete details, if so advised.
Further this order would not preciude the
respondent from initiating any steps in
accordance with law, if it is found that the
petitioner had violated any provisions of the
Act.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms."
7. We further take note of the judgment in Delhi
Polymers vs Commissioner, Trade and Taxes &
Anr. wherein the following was observed:-
"1. Petitioner has filed the appeal impugning
order of cancellation of registration dated
15.12.2021 whereby the OST registration of
the Petitioner has been cancelled
retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2017.
Petitioner also impugns Show Cause Notice
dated 04.09.2021.
2. Vide Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021,
petitioner was called upon to show cause as to
why the registration be not cancelled for the
following reason:-
"Collects any amount representing the tax but
fails to pay the same to the account of the
Central/State Government beyond a period of
three months from the date on which such
payment becomes due"
3. Petitioner was engaged in the ·business of
Sanitary ware Products & Accessories i.e.,
Baths, Shower, Washbasins, Seats and Cover
etc. and possessed OST registration.
4. Show Cause Notice dated 04.09.2021 was
issued to the Petitioner seeking to cancel its
registration. However, the Show Cause Notice
also does not put the petitioner to notice that
the registration is liable to be cancelled
retrospectively. Accordingly, the petitioner had
no opportunity to even object to the
retrospective cancellation of the registration.
5. Further, the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 passed on the Show Cause Notice
dated 04.09.2021 does not give any reasons for
cancellation. It, however, states that the
registration is liable to be cancelled for the
following reason "whereas no reply to the show
cause notice has been submitted". However,
the said order in itself is contradictory. The
order states "reference to your reply dated
15.12.2021 in response to the notice to show
cause dated 04.09.2021" and the reason stated
for the cancellation is "whereas no reply to
notice show cause has been submitted". The
order further states that effective date of
cancellation of registration is O 1.07.2017 i.e.,
a retrospective date.
6. Neither the show cause notice. nor the order
spell out the reasons for retrospective
cancellation. In fact. in our view. order dated
15.12.2021 does not qualify as an order of
cancellation of registration. On one hand. it
states that the registration is liable to be
cancelled and on the other. in the column at the
bottom there are no dues stated to be due
against the petitioner and the table shows nil
demand.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the said order reflected that the GST
registration of petitioner stands cancelled from
01.07.2017·even though returns thereafter
have been filed by the Petitioner.
8. He further submits that the petitioner is no
longer interested in continuing the business
and the business has been discontinued.
9. In terms of Section 29(2) of the Act. the
proper officer may cancel the GST registration
of a person from such date including any
retrospective date. as he may deem fit if the
circumstances set out in the said sub-section
are satisfied. Registration cannot be cancelled
with retrospective effect mechanically. It can
be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it
fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be
subjective but must be based on some objective
criteria. Merely. because a taxpayer has not
filed the returns for some period does not mean
that the taxpayer's registration is required to
be cancelled with retrospective date also
covering the period when the returns were filed
and the taxpayer was compliant.
10. It is important to note that. according to the
respondent. one of the consequences for
cancelling a tax payer's registration with
retrospective effect is that the taxpayer's
customers are denied the input tax credit
availed in respect of the supplies made by the
tax payer during such period. Although. we do
not consider it apposite to examine this aspect
but assuming that the respondent's contention
in required to consider this aspect while
passing any order for cancellation of GST
registration with retrospective effect. Thus. a
taxpayer's registration can be cancelled with
retrospective effect only where such
consequences are intended and are warranted.
11. It may be further noted that both the
Petitioners and the department want
cancellation of the GST registration of the
Petitioner, though for a different reason.
12. In view of the fact that Petitioner does not
seek to carry on business or continue the
registration, the impugned order dated
15.12.2021 is modified to the limited extent that
registration shall now be treated as cancelled
with effect from 04.09.2021 i.e., the date when
the Show Cause Notice was issued.
13. It is clarified that Respondents are also not
precluded from taking any steps for recovery of
any tax, penalty or interest that may be due in
respect of the subject firm in accordance with
law.
14. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the
above terms."
8. In view of the aforesaid and in light of an abject
failure on the part of the authority to assign even
rudimentary reasons for a retroactive cancellation,
we find ourselves unable to sustain the order
impugned."
4. In view of the above and when the impugned order
is tested on the aforenoted precepts, it becomes
apparent that absence of reasons in the original SCN
in support of a proposed retrospective cancellation as
well as a failure to place the petitioner on prior notice
of such an intent clearly invalidates the impugned
action. We. are thus of the considered opinion that the
writ petition is entitled to succeed on this short ground
alone.
5. We accordingly allow the writ petition by modifying
the impugned order and providing that the
cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration shall
come into effect from the date of the SCN i.e. 27
September 2024.
6. The stipulation in the impugned order of
cancellation to come into effect from 25 November
2021 is consequently quashed."
6. The above order was clearly passed under the presumption that the
SCNs filed along with the writ petitions were genuine. Similar orders were
passed in the other three writ petitions as well.
Proceedings before this Court
7. On 17th April, 2025, this Court while hearing W.P.(C) 2461/2025, was
informed by Mr. Pawar, ld. Counsel for 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. Mr. Pawar
also apprised the Court that all the Petitioners in the four writ petitions are
represented by Mr. Pranay Jain, ld. Counsel. After hearing the submissions
made by Mr. Pawar, the Court directed as under:
"10. Mr. Panwar, ld. Counsel also points out that there
are three further SCNs which were challenged in three
separate writ petitions, where a similar fabrication has
come to the knowledge of the Department. In all the
three matters as well, Mr. Pranay Jain is the counsel for
the respective Petitioners. The details of the said
petitions are reproduced herein below:
i. W.P.(C) 1314/2025 titled M/s Trix India Sales
Corporation v. Principal Commissioner of
Goods and Service Tax East Delhi;
ii. W.P.(C) 685/2025 titled S R Enterprises v. Pr.
Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, East
Delhi;
iii. W.P.(C) 2867/2025 titled M/s Compact Enterprises
v. Principal Commissioner of Goods
and Service Tax East Delhi.
xxxx
12. Under these circumstances, the following directions
are issued:
i. The final order dated 27th February, 2025 passed by
the Court in this writ petition shall stands recalled and
any order giving effect to the said order of this Court
shall also not be given effect to.
ii. The proprietor of the Petitioner Concern, Mr. Sahib
Alam shall remain present in Court on the next date of
hearing.
iii. The Registry shall list all the three writ petitions
mentioned above, along with the present writ petition,
before this Court on the next date.
iv. Intimation shall be given by Mr. Jain, ld. Counsel to
the Petitioners in those three cases as well so that they
can remain present before this Court."
8. Thereafter, all the four writ petitions had been taken up together on 29th
April, 2025, wherein ld. Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Pranay Jain, had
submitted that he had sent notices to his clients i.e., the Petitioners. However,
the Petitioners have not contacted him since the filing of the review petition
by the Department. Ld. Counsel had further submitted that he is no longer in
touch with the Petitioners. On the basis of the said submissions, the following
directions had been issued by this Court on the said date:
Relevant order in W.P.(C) 685/2025
"11. Under these circumstances, the following
directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject
petition dated 03rd February, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of
the Petitioner- Mr. Satyapal who has deposed the
affidavit dated 17th January, 2025 in the subject petition
filed before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the
SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through
Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on
the next date of hearing.
Relevant order of W.P.(C) 1314/2025
"11. Under these circumstances, the following
directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject
petition dated 03rd February, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of
the Petitioner- Mr. Rajan who has deposed the affidavit
dated 31st January, 2025 in the subject petition filed
before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the
SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through
Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on
the next date of hearing."
Relevant order of W.P.(C) 2461/2025
"10. Under these circumstances, the following
directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject
petition dated 27th February, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of
the Petitioner- Mr. Sahib Alam who has deposed the
affidavit dated 24th February, 2025 in the subject
petition filed before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the
SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through
Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on
the next date of hearing."
Relevant order of W.P.(C) 2867/2025
"11. Under these circumstances, the following
directions are issued:
i. The order passed by this Court disposing of the subject
petition dated 6th March, 2025 is recalled.
ii. Non-bailable warrants are issued for production of
the Petitioner- Mr. Aman who has deposed the affidavit
dated 4th March, 2025 in the subject petition filed
before the Court.
iii. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed by the
SHO of the concerned area.
iv. The non-bailable warrant shall be executed through
Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
v. The Petitioner shall be produced before the Court on
the next date of hearing."
9. On the next date i.e. 20th May 2025, all the four petitions were taken
up together. On the said date, this Court received the reports as directed in the
previous orders. The reports were received from the following authorities:
i. In W.P.(C) 685/2025, Head Constable Mr. Sachin Kumar, PS
Karawal Nagar, reported that Mr. Satyapal is not traceable and his mobile
number i.e. 9625164590 is switched off.
ii. In W.P.(C) 1314/2025, the report had been received from
Inspector Vipin Yadav from S.H.O., PS Karawal Nagar that Mr. Rajan is
not traceable at the address given in the writ petition and even the mobile
number is not traceable.
iii. In W.P.(C) 2461/2025, non-bailable warrants had been issued.
The S.H.O., Dayal Pur had furnished a report that Mr. Sahib Alam,
Proprietor of M/s Compact Enterprises is not traceable at any of the
addresses which had been given.
iv. In W.P.(C) 2867/2025, non-bailable warrants had been issued,
however, no report had been furnished.
10. From the reports placed, it was clear that none of the four Petitioners
who had filed the writ petitions were traceable. Apart from the copies of some
Aadhaar cards and mobile number, the counsel also did not have any other
information. After hearing the ld. Counsels for the parties and perusing the
reports submitted by the authorities, the Court had directed on 20th May 2025,
as under:
"11. Clearly, none of these individuals are traceable. It
is surprising as to how all the four individuals' affidavits
are attested/ notarised and the Id. Counsel for the
Petitioner has identified them. The Aadhar cards of the
Proprietors of the Petitioner entities have also been
handed over but the status of the same needs to be
ascertained. Under these circumstances, it is directed as
under:
i. Notice be issued to Mr. Sushil Raja, Id. Counsel for
the UIDAI. He shall verify the Aadhar cards of the
following individuals and a report be placed in a sealed
cover before this Court by the next date of hearing. The
UIDAI shall also furnish any details available with them
in respect of their mobile numbers, residential address,
etc., as per their records. The Aadhar card details of the
Proprietors of the Petitioner entities furnished to the
Court reads as under:
S.No Name Aadhar No.
1. Mr. Satyapal 498091297686
2. Mr. Rafan 985580468256
3. Mr. Sahib Alam 655605243580
4. Mr. Aman 453910321889
ii) 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., 17th January, 2025, 31st January,
2025, 24th February, 2025 and 4th March, 2025. She
shall also place on record a short affidavit as to the
manner in which she attested the affidavits of the
deponents.
iii) The GST Department, Commissionerate East Delhi
shall verify their records and place whatever
documents they have of these Petitioners before this
Court on the next date. In addition, the GST
Department shall also verify if any other SCNs have
been issued to these Petitioners for any of the financial
years. A report in this regard shall also be placed by the
next date of hearing."
11. Since the Aadhaar card copies were given by the ld. Counsel for 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 amiss.
12. The matter was then taken up on 28th May 2025. Except one person-
Mr. Aman, no one else was traceable. Inspector Neeraj Kumar, PS Shahdara,
Delhi had appeared before the Court and placed on record a status report along
with several documents. According to the said report, the Aadhaar Card
bearing no. 453910321889 is 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 does not match with the photograph in the Aadhaar Card
handed over by Mr. Pranay Jain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
13. In the said report, it was also stated that the firm- M/s Compact
Enterprises has a bank account with Yes Bank bearing account no.
0328000000079 in which a total sum of Rs. 19,40,14,606/- has been credited
from 1st January, 2025 to 30th April, 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.
14. Inspector Neeraj Kumar, 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.
15. The Oath Commissioner- Ms. Shilpa Verma also appeared on the last
date of hearing. She also produced the registers for various dates as directed
vide order dated 20th May, 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.
16. Moreover, on the last date, ld. Senior Panel Counsel for the Union of
India had filed a report on behalf of the Unique Identification Authority of
India (hereinafter, 'UIDAI') in a sealed cover. Mr. Aditya Singla, ld. SSC and
Mr. Aakash Pawar, ld. Counsel for the Respondent had also handed over
reports in all the four cases received from the GST Department.
17. This Court based on these reports which were placed on record on the
last date, directed S.H.O, P.S Shahdara to produce Mr. Aman in Court on 29th
May, 2025 i.e. today at 2:30 p.m. Further, the report filed by the UIDAI of all
the four persons was handed over to ld. Counsels appearing for the
Department i.e. Mr. Singla and Mr. Pawar as also to Mr. Sanjay Lao, ld.
Standing Counsel (Criminal), GNCTD, to conduct further enquiries on the
basis of the information in the said report and present the same before the
Court. The relevant portion of the said order dated 28th May, 2025 reads as
under:
"10. Under these circumstances, it is deemed
appropriate to direct the S.H.O. PS Shahdara to
produce Mr. Aman in the Court on 29th May, 2025 at
2:30 p.m.
XXXX
16. The UIDAI data is usually protected by the
laws of privacy. However, considering the nature of the
illegalities in this matter, the details supplied by the
UIDAI of all the four persons including their
addresses and mobile numbers are handed over to the
Id. Counsels appearing for the Department i.e. Mr.
Panwar and Mr. Singla as also to Mr. Sanjay Lao, Id.
Standing Counsel (Criminal), GNCTD.
17. Let further enquiries be made about these
individuals on the basis of their addresses and mobile
numbers and whatever details can be gathered be
presented to the Court tomorrow i.e., 29th May, 2025 at
2:30 p.m."
18. Today, Mr. Sahib Alam has been produced in the Court. He is the
proprietor of the M/s Royal Enterprises. He states that he came in touch with
one Mr. Rajat, who is a scrap dealer in Ghaziabad, Loha Mandi. 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 are 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. Alam.
19. According to Mr. Alam, he has been cheated "by Mr. Rajat". At this
stage, he is being shown the Aadhaar Card in the name of Mr. Alam handed
over by Mr. Pranay Jain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner which has a
photograph. 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.
20. It is therefore clear that the Aadhaar Cards which have been filed by
the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner are forged and fabricated. This fact is also
confirmed by the officials of Directorate General of GST Intelligence
(hereinafter, 'DGGI') who are present today and also the ld. Counsel
appearing for the Delhi Police.
21. Insofar as Mr. Aman is concerned, the submission of Mr. Singla, ld.
SSC for the Respondent is that in the bank account maintained by M/s
Compact Enterprises at Yes Bank bearing account no. 0328000000079, there
has been circulation of more than Rs. 50,00,00,000/- in eleven months.
22. The Inspector, Mr. Neeraj Kumar, PS Shahdara submits that since
yesterday, after the order which was passed for production of Mr. Aman, he
visited the residence of Mr. Aman wherein he was informed by his father and
brother that he is not available.
23. Inspector Neeraj Kumar was then made to go to a different location
where a relative of Mr. Aman was staying, however, he was not traced there.
Inspector Neeraj Kumar was then directed to go to a hospital in the Mukherjee
Nagar area, but on each and every occasion Mr. Aman had been skipped and
could not be traced.
24. Inspector Neeraj Kumar has produced before the Court, the father and
the brother of Mr. Aman, who submit that they will cooperate with the
investigating agencies, as and when required.
25. The other two individuals namely Mr. Satyapal and Mr. Rajan are not
traceable till date.
Observations & Findings
26. From all the events transpired in these petitions the following facts have
emerged:
i. The four petitions were filed by persons who did not have any
authority on behalf of these firms as of now.
ii. The four petitions were signed by deponents who were fictitious
persons.
iii.The Aadhaar Cards which were relied upon by Mr. Pranay Jain,
ld. Counsel for the Petitioners are clearly forged and fabricated.
iv. From the register of the Oath Commissioners, it is not even clear
as to whether the persons who have signed the affidavits had even
appeared before Ms. Shilpa Verma, Oath Commissioner or not as
she could not recognize them even from their Aadhaar Card or
photographs.
v. The SCNs which were filed with the writ petitions were also
forged and fabricated.
27. The four Petitioners i.e. M/s S R Enterprises, M/s Trix India Sales
Corporation, M/s Royal Enterprises and M/s Compact Enterprises are stated
to be run by the following people namely:
S.No. Name Aadhaar Current Address Current
Number Mobile No.
1. Mr. Satyapal 498091297686 S/o Shankar, R/o 9871573611
Plot No. 34, Gali No.
7, Sant Surdas
Nagar, Sector-74,
Mirzapur,
Ballabgarh,
Faridabad, Haryana-
121004
2. Mr. Rajan 985580468256 S/o Tribhuwan 9910883450
Prasad, R/o House
No. 53 A, Block-F2,
Hamdard Nagar,
Hauz Khas, South
Delhi, Delhi-
110062.
3. Mr. Sahib 655605243580 C/o Mohd. Anwar, 7302903835
R/o Building No.
Alam 610, Gali No. 8, New
Mustafabad Gokal
Pur, Seelampur
North East Delhi,
Delhi-110094.
4. Mr. Aman 453910321889 S/o Ashok, R/o H. 9711569337
No. 16, Air Force
Station, Arjangarh
Aya Nagar, South
Delhi, Delhi-110047
28. However, Mr. Sahib Alam, who is present in the Court today clearly
does not even run M/s Royal Enterprises. He is in fact unemployed.
29. Mr. Aman is allegedly working as a domestic help within residential
quarters of an official of the Indian Air Force and is also residing in the
quarters there. Mr. Aman prima facie could not have a sum of Rs.
50,00,00,000/- circulated through his bank account.
30. The persons who are controlling these firms and these individuals are
clearly not known to the Court as of date. The same appears to be a well-
planned conspiracy to commit GST fraud and to obtain monetary benefits and
would require an in-depth investigation by the concerned authorities.
31. The extent of knowledge of Mr. Pranay Jain, ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner is also not clear at this stage as to who approached him for filing
the petitions, who gave him the copies of the SCNs and how he got the forged
Aadhaar Cards of these individuals for filing of the writ petitions.
32. Mr. Puri, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for Mr. Pranay Jain submits that the
identity of the persons who gave the Aadhaar Card and documents to Mr.
Pranay Jain, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is not known.
33. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the
seriousness of the matter requires registration of a First Information Report
(hereinafter, 'FIR').
34. The DGGI officials present in Court shall, within one week conduct
thorough investigation and file a complaint with the Crime Branch, Delhi
Police who shall then register an FIR forthwith.
35. Upon the registration of the FIR, the law shall take its course and the
matter shall be prosecuted by the DGGI, in accordance with law.
Oath Commissioner:
36. Ms. Shilpa Verma is present in the Court today. The original Registers
of Ms. Verma, retained with the Court Master, are returned today. Ms. Verma
submits that Oath Commissioners do not work under very comfortable
circumstances and the areas where they sit are quite crowded. It is for the
concerned Courts to create some area for attestation of affidavit by Oath
Commissioners and Notaries. Ms. Verma further submits that at the place
where Oath Commissioners sit, some directions could be issued for
photographs to be taken for deponent so that such incidents do not occur in
future.
37. Let 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.
Final orders in the Writ Petitions
38. The orders which were passed by the Court i.e. two orders dated 3rd
February 2025, and the orders dated 27th February 2025 and 6th March 2025,
in these four writ petitions are accordingly re-called.
39. In future, when GST matters are filed, ld. 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.
40. In view of the fact 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 for offences under Sections 227, 228, 229, 233, 236, 237, 246,
336(1) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
41. The non-bailable warrants issued against Mr. Sahib Alam are
discharged, subject to the undertaking that Mr. Alam shall join the
investigation being conducted by the DGGI.
42. Mr. Firoz Khan, ld. Counsel appearing for Mr. Sahib Alam undertakes
and assures the Court that his client would cooperate and join the
investigation.
43. Accordingly, the four petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s),
if any, also stand disposed of.
44. No further orders are called for.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2025/da/ck
