Vikas Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner (Preventive)

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's arguments regarding his liability or the survival of the complaint. Instead, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to raise all his pleas before the trial court at the appropriate stage. The Court, in view of this submission, dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to raise all the pleas, including those concerning his lack of mens rea, his role as a professional practitioner, and the acquittal of the principal accused, before the trial court. No specific finding was given on the legal issues raised by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Gupta, a professional GST practitioner, filed a petition before the High Court challenging the proceedings initiated against him under the GST Act. He argued that the alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i) of the GST Act were attributable to the partners and proprietors of the firms for whom he had filed returns in his professional capacity. He contended that there was no evidence of his mens rea or complicity in any offence. Furthermore, he pointed out that the principal accused, the partners and proprietors, had already been acquitted in an FIR concerning the same offences, rendering the current complaint unsustainable. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner, a professional GST practitioner who merely filed returns on behalf of firms, can be held responsible for offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f), and (i) of the GST Act committed by the firms or their partners/proprietors, particularly in the absence of mens rea or evidence of complicity (Section 132(1) of the GST Act)? 2. Whether the complaint against the petitioner can survive when the principal accused (partners/proprietors) have already been acquitted in an FIR for the same offences? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that as a professional GST practitioner, he was not involved in the commission of any offence and lacked the requisite mens rea. He contended that the offences were attributable to the partners and proprietors. He further argued that the acquittal of the principal accused in the FIR for the same offences meant the current complaint against him could not stand. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondent.