Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA And 9 Others
Facts
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Gupta, an advocate, purchased gold and silver ornaments from Rohit Jewellers (respondent Nos. 9 and 10) in Hyderabad between November 2021 and January 2022. The petitioner alleges that Rohit Jewellers failed to issue GST bills and receipts for these purchases. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint on January 27, 2022, with the police authorities seeking action against Rohit Jewellers. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition, filed in February 2023, is the alleged inaction of the police and other respondent authorities in registering a crime or taking appropriate action based on his complaint. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the authorities to initiate action, including registering a crime.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent police had registered a case in Crime No. 61 of 2023 on March 15, 2023, for offences under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In light of this development, the Court found no further orders to be necessary. The writ petition was closed, with a direction to the respondent police to proceed with the investigation in the registered crime strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the inaction of the respondent police and other authorities (respondent Nos. 2 to 8) in initiating action against respondent Nos. 9 and 10, based on the petitioner's complaint dated January 27, 2022, is illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide, violating Articles 14 and 276 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the authorities' failure to act on his complaint is illegal and arbitrary. He sought a direction to initiate appropriate action, including registering a crime against Rohit Jewellers. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents regarding the petitioner's claims. However, during the proceedings, it was submitted that the police had registered a case.
Sections Cited
Section 420, Section 406, Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[32e6 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Juri iction) THUR AY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:4878 OF 2023 Between: Sandeep Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Dr. S.K Gupta Aged about 40 Years, Occ. Advoca[e, Ri/o. Ward No.29, Purani Basti, Shadol District, Shandol, Madhya Pradesh ...PETITIONER AND 1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, 3rd floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-1 10001. 2. Thebirector General of Goods and Service Tax (DGGST), 1st and 2nd Floor, Wing Number 06, West Block, 08, RK Puram, New Delhi - 1't0066
The-State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad
Th6 Director General of Police, Crime lnvestigation Deparlment, Telangana State, Hyderabad.
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Telangana.
The Commissioner of Central Tax and Customs, Secunderabad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad
The Joint Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Secunderabad Division, Mayur Kushal Complex, B- Block, Abids, Hyderabad B. The Additional Commissioner
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.