Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Authorities to Decide GST Fraud Representation Within One Month

Case Overview

Case Name: Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and others
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Nature of Matter: Writ Petition seeking directions for investigation into alleged GST fraud and criminal misappropriation

Background of the Petition

A petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the petitioner, Rajesh Kumar, seeking judicial intervention against a private party for a series of serious alleged offences. The grievances raised in the petition encompassed multiple criminal and financial violations, including:

  • Cheating and forgery
  • Falsification of records
  • Fraudulent manipulation of GST records
  • Criminal misappropriation of GST amounts allegedly collected from the petitioner

In addition to seeking action against the concerned private respondent, the petitioner also prayed for a fair, lawful, and impartial investigation to be conducted by the appropriate authorities into the alleged misconduct.

Submission Made Before the Court

During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner brought to the Court's attention that a representation dated 06.11.2025, marked as Annexure P-7, had already been filed and placed before respondent No. 5. The counsel urged the Court to issue appropriate directions mandating that the said representation be taken up and disposed of within a defined and reasonable timeframe, rather than allowing it to remain unaddressed.

Given this development, the petitioner's counsel sought the disposal of the writ petition itself by requesting the Court to direct respondent No. 5 to act upon the pending representation within a stipulated period.

Appearance of the State

The Court noted that advance notice had already been served upon the State prior to the hearing. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, appeared on behalf of the respondent-State. In view of this prior service and the counsel's appearance, the Court dispensed with the formal service of notice upon the State.

This procedural aspect ensured that the matter could be disposed of effectively in a single hearing without further delays attributable to service requirements.