Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, filed the instant petition seeking directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action against respondent No. 7 for the alleged commission of offences involving cheating, forgery, falsification of records, fraudulent manipulation of GST records, and criminal misappropriation of the GST amount collected from the petitioner.

The petitioner further sought a fair investigation in accordance with law.

During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already filed a representation dated 06.11.2025 (Annexure P-7) before respondent No. 5. The petitioner, therefore, confined the prayer to a direction requiring respondent No. 5 to decide the said representation within a stipulated period.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the matter were:

  1. Whether directions were required to be issued to the respondent authorities for appropriate action concerning the allegations of cheating, forgery, falsification of records, fraudulent manipulation of GST records, and criminal misappropriation of GST amounts allegedly collected from the petitioner.
  2. Whether respondent No. 5 should be directed to decide the petitioner’s pending representation dated 06.11.2025 within a fixed timeframe.
  3. Whether the High Court, while issuing such a direction, should express any finding on the merits of the allegations contained in the representation.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that:

  • A representation dated 06.11.2025, annexed as Annexure P-7, had already been filed before respondent No. 5.
  • The allegations concerned cheating, forgery, falsification of records, fraudulent manipulation of GST records, and criminal misappropriation of GST amounts collected from the petitioner.
  • Appropriate action and a fair investigation in accordance with law were sought against the concerned respondent.
  • At the hearing, the petitioner prayed that the petition be disposed of by directing respondent No. 5 to decide the pending representation within a stipulated time.

Respondent’s Arguments

Advance notice had already been served upon the State. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent-State.

The judgment does not record any detailed substantive counter-arguments on the merits of the allegations. Since the State had already entered appearance pursuant to advance notice, formal service of notice upon the State was dispensed with.

Court Order / Findings

The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No. 5 to decide the petitioner’s representation, Annexure P-7, by passing a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court’s order.

Accordingly, the Court did not adjudicate the underlying allegations of cheating, forgery, falsification of records, fraudulent manipulation of GST records, or criminal misappropriation of GST amounts on their merits.

The operative direction was limited to ensuring a reasoned consideration and decision upon the petitioner’s pending representation within the prescribed period.

Important Clarification

The High Court expressly clarified that no finding was being returned on the merits of the contents of the petitioner’s representation.

The Court further clarified that respondent No. 5 would remain at liberty to:

  • independently assess the contents of the petitioner’s representation; and
  • take an independent decision at his own level.

Therefore, the order should not be construed as acceptance, confirmation, or adjudication of the petitioner’s allegations. The competent authority is required to independently examine the representation and pass a speaking order.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

The judgment itself does not expressly specify any particular statutory section of the GST enactments or penal law.

The matter concerns allegations relating to:

  • cheating;
  • forgery;
  • falsification of records;
  • fraudulent manipulation of GST records;
  • criminal misappropriation of GST amounts collected from the petitioner;
  • fair investigation in accordance with law; and
  • disposal of a pending representation by a speaking order.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783069955_431compressed.pdf

Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.