Facts of the Case

  1. The petitioner, M/s S K Overseas, filed Writ Petition 6124/2024 challenging the cancellation of its GST registration by the Respondent, Superintendent Range‑20 Central GST Division.
  2. The High Court, by its order dated 6th March 2025, had directed that the GST registration of the petitioner would be cancelled with effect from 12th September 2023.
  3. Subsequently, the respondent filed a Review Petition (No. 428/2025) seeking to review the said order under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
  4. In the review, it emerged that the person identified as the proprietor of the petitioner firm, Mr. Suraj, had stated in investigation that he was not connected to the petitioner firm, and denied knowledge of the business, PAN details and mobile number claimed to be of the firm.
  5. The petitioner counsel admitted he had never met the client; the case was referred to him by an accountant, Mr. Ashish Chaurasia of M/s AMR & Associates.
  6. The Court observed increasing instances of fictitious firms in GST litigation, with affidavits notarized without proper verification of clients.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned order of 6th March 2025 cancelling the GST registration was liable to be reviewed on account of materially incorrect pleadings and affidavits.
  2. Whether the facts of the case disclose a fictitious firm and if procedural safeguards should be strengthened in such GST matters.
  3. Whether the Court should direct the appearance of the accountant who facilitated the matter and ensure accountability. 

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner counsel argued that he acted based on information received from the accountant, shared through WhatsApp, and he had not independently verified his brief.
• Submission was made that the details supplied by the accountant constituted sufficient basis for filing the writ petition. 

Respondent’s Arguments

• The respondent maintained that factual inaccuracies and false affidavits deprived the courts of correct material, justifying review under CPC provisions.
• The respondent highlighted that the petitioner’s GST registration cancellation was based on incorrect assumptions due to fictitious representations.

Court Findings / Order

  1. The High Court noted the startling admission of the purported proprietor that he had no knowledge of the petitioner firm, exposing potential forgery and fictitiousness.
  2. The Court underscored a troubling trend of firms being registered in fictitious names with lawyers and accountants relying blindly on unverified documents.
  3. While no adverse observation was made against the counsel (a regular practitioner), the Court directed the appearance of the accountant, Mr. Ashish Chaurasia, for proper inquiry.
  4. The order to be communicated to the SHO of PS Uttam Nagar for necessary action, and the matter was posted for further hearing. 

Important Clarifications

The review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Sections 114 & 151 CPC.
 The Court reiterated the need for proper verification of clients and documentation in GST litigation.
 The Court’s direction for appearance of the accountant indicates growing judicial concern over fraudulent litigation practices.

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS19092025CW61242024_114921.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.