Delhi High Court | GST Department Cannot Probe Misuse Of GSTIN By Third Party | Investigation Authority Vests In Economic Offences Wing Under CGST Act, 2017
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain directed the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police to investigate allegations of misuse of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration number. The Court recorded that a demand exceeding ₹48 crores had been raised against the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. While granting liberty to pursue appellate remedies under Section 107 of the Act, the Bench directed the EOW to examine the complaint and file a further status report, with the GST Department required to extend cooperation.
The matter arose out of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an adjudication order dated 31 January 2025, issued by the Superintendent (Adjudication), Central GST Delhi. By the impugned order, the department raised a demand of more than ₹48 crores against the petitioner.
The petitioner was earlier registered under the Value Added Tax (VAT) regime, conducting business under the name “M/s Samyak International.” Upon introduction of the GST regime, a provisional registration was allotted to the same trade name. According to the petitioner, such provisional registration was not applied for and was not sought by him.
It was submitted that business operations under “M/s Samyak International” were closed with effect from 28 July 2017, whereafter a fresh registration was obtained under the name “M/s Samyak Fashion (India).” However, in 2018–2019, the petitioner received intimation from the GST authorities regarding misuse of the provisional GST number originally allotted to “M/s Samyak International.” Substantial amounts of input tax credit (ITC) were both passed on and availed in the name of the earlier entity. The petitioner disowned these transactions, contending that his credentials had been misused.
On 7 July 2025, the High Court considered the matter and recorded that the petitioner had the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. Although the limitation period had lapsed, the Court permitted filing of such appeal within one month along with the requisite pre-deposit, directing that the appeal should not be dismissed on limitation grounds and be adjudicated on merits.
Simultaneously, the Court required the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police to submit a status report concerning the complaint filed by the petitioner, alleging fraudulent misuse of his GST registration number.
Pursuant to this, on 24 August 2025, a status report was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. The report recorded that a complaint had been received from the petitioner on 8 September 2022 via the office of the DCP, Shahdara. The allegations related to misuse of his GST registration number. Upon preliminary examination, the EOW concluded that the matter pertained to the jurisdiction of the GST Department and, accordingly, forwarded the complaint on 8 February 2023 to the concerned CGST office for action. The complainant was duly informed of this forwarding. The report further recorded that no FIR had been registered by the EOW, as the matter was considered to fall within the GST Department’s scope, though the EOW undertook to abide by any order of the Court.
The Court noted that despite the complaint, the Delhi Police had merely forwarded the matter to the GST Department and had not undertaken any substantive investigation. The petitioner’s consistent grievance was that his GST number was misused by unknown persons and that none of the transactions forming the basis of the tax demand were conducted by him.
The record included the letter dated 8 February 2023 from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, EOW, forwarding the complaint to the GST Department. The communication indicated that a preliminary inquiry suggested that the matter related to GST, and therefore the EOW had refrained from further action.
The Court considered the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribe certain offences cognizable by GST authorities. However, it was observed that the specific allegation in this case was impersonation through fraudulent use of the petitioner’s GST number by unidentified persons. Such an allegation, in the Court’s view, required investigation by the Economic Offences Wing rather than by the GST Department alone.
Accordingly, the Bench directed that the EOW examine the complaint substantively, while also requiring the GST Department to cooperate and provide all relevant documents.
The Bench recorded: “In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion the Petitioner ought to avail of its remedy in accordance with law by filing an appeal against the impugned order under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Though the limitation for filing such appeal has already lapsed, however, in the facts of this case, the Petitioner is given one month time to file the appeal along with the requisite pre-deposit.”
The Court further stated: “In order to, however, ensure that the investigation is properly done, let the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police file a status report before this Court, which shall be perused and further orders shall be passed in this regard. It is, however, made clear that on the merits of the case, the Petitioner has to avail of his appellate remedy. If the appeal is filed within one month, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation and shall be adjudicated on merits.”
After perusal of the EOW’s status report, the Court observed: “A perusal of the above status report would show that the Delhi police has merely forwarded the complaint to the GST department and has not taken any action on its own.”
In considering the allegations, the Bench noted: “The complaint and allegation made by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner’s GST number was misused by some unknown person and none of the transactions for which the impugned demand has been raised, were conducted by the Petitioner.”
The Court analyzed the correspondence of 8 February 2023: “Enclosed please find herewith the attached complaint in original, for taking necessary action and direct disposal at your end. Preliminary enquiry was taken up and it has been found that matter relates to GST Deptt. have powers to investigate such matters.”
The Bench, however, clarified: “The above letter would show that there appears to be some misunderstanding with respect to the powers of the GST department to investigate such matters.”
It further recorded: “Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for certain offences which the GST Department can take cognizance of. However, the allegation here is that the GST number of the Petitioner has been misused by a third party, who is unknown.”
Finally, the Court stated: “In the opinion of this Court, under such circumstances where the allegation of the Petitioner is that there is an impersonation of the Petitioner’s credentials, the matter ought to be investigated by the Economic Offences Wing.”
The Bench issued clear directives. It ordered that the Delhi Police Economic Offences Wing shall examine the complaint and proceed in accordance with law. The Court mandated that a status report be filed before it after such investigation.
It directed that all documents available with the GST Department concerning the petitioner’s credentials be forwarded to the EOW for its investigation. The Bench required that, should further documents or inquiries be necessary, the GST Department must extend full cooperation.
The Court further recorded that Inspector S.S. Gill of the Delhi Police (Economic Offences Wing), present during the proceedings, would be furnished with a copy of the order to ensure compliance.
Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that an appeal, in line with the earlier order dated 7 July 2025, had already been filed.
The matter was listed for further hearing on 12 November 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pulkit Verma, Advocate; Mr. Peyush Pruthi, Advocate; Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Atul Tripathi, Senior Standing Counsel, CBIC with Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil, Advocate; Mr. Samyar Jain, Advocate; Ms. Urvi Mohan, Advocate for GNCTD.
Case Title: Samyak Jain v. Superintendent (Adjudication), Central GST Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7391-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 9139/2025 & CM APPL. 38812/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
