M/S S K Overseas vs. Superintendent Range 20 Central GST Division
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s S K Overseas, filed a writ petition challenging the retrospective cancellation of its GST registration from May 17, 2022. The Respondent, the CGST Department, filed a review petition against the High Court's order dated March 6, 2025, which had been passed based on the initial pleadings. During the review proceedings, it was revealed that the Petitioner firm was fictitious, and the individual named as its proprietor, Mr. Suraj, denied any connection to it. Furthermore, the lawyer representing the Petitioner, Mr. Pulkit Verma, stated he had not met his client and was briefed by M/s AMR and Associates. An affidavit filed with the writ petition was attested by an accountant, Mr. Ashish Chaurasia. The CGST, Delhi North, filed a complaint with the Crime Branch, leading to the registration of FIR No. 44/2026.
Held
The Court held that the order dated March 6, 2025, which was passed on the initial pleadings, no longer stands and deserves to be recalled. This was due to the revelation that the Petitioner firm, M/s S K Overseas, was a fictitious entity, and its alleged proprietor, Mr. Suraj, had no knowledge of it. The Court found the case put forth by the Petitioner to be factually incorrect and false. Consequently, the writ petition itself was deemed not maintainable. The Court recalled its earlier order and dismissed the writ petition. Regarding the lawyer, Mr. Pulkit Verma, the Court directed him to cooperate with the investigation in FIR No. 44/2026 and hand over all evidence to the Crime Branch, which would then proceed in accordance with law. The review petition was disposed of on these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether the order dated March 6, 2025, passed in the writ petition, which was based on the initial pleadings, should be recalled in light of new facts emerging during the review proceedings. This issue turns on the Court's power to review its own orders when material facts presented were found to be factually incorrect and false. Contentions: Petitioner (CGST Department): Argued that the initial order was based on factually incorrect and false information, as the Petitioner firm was fictitious and its alleged proprietor had no knowledge of it. They relied on the statement of Mr. Suraj and the subsequent FIR registration. Respondent (M/s S K Overseas): The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Petitioner in the review petition, but notes the Petitioner's lawyer, Mr. Pulkit Verma, filed WhatsApp chats to show he was unaware of the Petitioner's non-existence and was briefed by M/s AMR and Associates.
Sections Cited
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026 REVIEW PET.428/2025 in W.P.(C)-6124/2024
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Central Goods and Service Tax Department (hereinafter, ‘CGST Department’) seeking review of the order dated 6th March, 2025 passed in this writ petition.
The order dated 6th March, 2025 was passed on the basis of the pleadings and facts, which were set out in the writ petition to the effect that the GST registration of the Petitioner was cancelled, retrospectively with effect from 17th May, 2022. 4. In the present review petition, several orders have been passed, which would reveal that the entire case which was put up by the Petitioner was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:36:35 factually incorrect and false. The Petitioner firm -M/s S K Overseas, which is stated to be the proprietary concern of Mr. Suraj is not connected to the said person at all.
Statement of Mr. Suraj was recorded on 7th February, 2025 in which he has clearly stated that he is not aware of M/s S K Overseas. Thereafter, it has also been revealed that Mr. Pulkit Verma, who was a lawyer representing M/s S K Overseas, himself had not met his client. The affidavit filed along with the present petition has been attested through Mr. Ashish Chaurasia, who is stated to be an accountant.
It is further unravelled that the Petitioner itself was a fictitious entity. Under these circumstances, the Court had directed the investigation and in respect thereof, the CGST, Delhi North has now filed a complaint with the Crime Branch and the FIR No.44/2026 has also been registered at PS Crime Branch.
Under these circumstances, the order dated 6th March, 2025 would no longer stand and deserves to be recalled. The same is, accordingly, recalled.
Considering that there is no firm by the name M/s S K Overseas, the writ petition itself would not be maintainable. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Insofar as Mr. Pulkit Verma and his stand in the present case is concerned, he has filed certain WhatsApp Chats to show that he was not aware of non-existence of Mr. Suraj or of M/s S K Overseas. He further submits that he was briefed by M/s AMR and Associates. For the said purpose, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Pulkit Verma dated 23rd April, 2026. 10. Under these circumstances, let Mr. Pulkit Verma cooperate in the investigation in the abovementioned FIR and he shall hand over all this This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:36:35 evidence to the Crime Branch. The Crime Branch shall then proceed in accordance with law.
The review petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. APRIL 24, 2026/dk/ck This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 13:36:35
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.