M/S Metro Engineers vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Metro Engineers, filed a petition seeking directions for the registration of an FIR against respondent No. 2. The petitioner alleged that despite making full payment to respondent No. 2, its service provider, respondent No. 2 failed to deposit the Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the Government of India. The petitioner had previously submitted representations to respondent No. 1 on October 26, 2024, and December 24, 2024, seeking action. However, no action was taken by respondent No. 1. The petitioner restricted its prayer to seeking consideration of its representations.
Held
The Court directed respondent No. 1 to consider the representations dated 26.10.2024 and 24.12.2024 made by the petitioner. A speaking order was to be passed within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court also suggested that respondent No. 1, if it deemed fit, should hear both the petitioner and respondent No. 2 before passing the speaking order. The Court did not explicitly address the prayer for FIR registration, as the petitioner had restricted its prayer to the consideration of representations. The reasoning was based on the principle that authorities should address and decide upon representations made to them. The ratio decidendi is that statutory authorities are obligated to consider and pass reasoned orders on representations filed by aggrieved parties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representations dated 26.10.2024 and 24.12.2024 seeking action against respondent No. 2 for non-payment of GST. The petitioner argued that respondent No. 2, despite receiving full payment, had not deposited the GST, and respondent No. 1 had failed to act on the petitioner's complaints. The petitioner relied on the principle that authorities must consider representations made to them. 2. Whether the Court should direct the registration of an FIR against respondent No. 2 under specific sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other relevant provisions for alleged offences related to GST non-payment. The petitioner contended that the non-deposit of GST by respondent No. 2 constituted an offence warranting an FIR. The respondent (Union of India and Ors.) did not explicitly record arguments on these issues, but the Court's directions indicate a focus on the consideration of representations.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
This is a petition seeking direction for registration of F.I.R. against respondent No. 2 for non-payment of GST and other offences.
This is a petition seeking the following prayers:
“1. Kindly direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 26/10/2024, 24/12/2024 issued by the Petitioner for taking appropriate action against the Respondent No. 2; and 2. To register a First Information Report (FIR) against the Respondent No. 1 under Sections 316(1), 318(4), 61(2), 336(1), and 351(2)/(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and any other relevant provisions of law.
Direct the Police authorities to initiate a prompt and thorough investigation into the matter and take appropriate action as per the law.”
Ms. Vaijanthi K., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.