Fictitious GST Firms; Lawyers Files Petition Without Meeting Client: Delhi HC Calls appearance of Accountant [Read Order]
The Court observed that several fictitious persons had registered firms using stolen or impersonated identities and had approached it, with lawyers attesting and notarizing affidavits without verification, relying on references from accountants, consultants, or GST practitioners.
The High Court of Delhi calls the appearance of an accountant in a matter involving fictitious GST firms after lawyers filed a petition without meeting clients.
S K Overseas,petitioner-assessee, revealed in the review petition that Mr. Suraj, alleged to be the proprietor of the firm, admitted during an investigation that he had no connection with the petitioner firm.
Mr.Suraj stated that he was a blacksmith with a small roadside shop, was unaware of any firm named S K Overseas or its address, and did not own the PAN or mobile number associated with the firm. He also denied signing the rent agreement dated 27.04.2022, even though the signature resembled his.
The petitioner counsel stated that he had not met his client, Mr. Suraj. The matter was referred to him by M/s AMR & Associates through Shri Ashish Chaurasia, an accountant. The counsel produced WhatsApp chats showing that Mr. Chaurasia had provided the credentials of the petitioner and instructions to access the firm’s portal. He submitted that the accountant knew the client, while he himself had no knowledge of him.
Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that several fictitious persons had registered firms using stolen or impersonated identities and had approached it. In these cases, lawyers had not met the clients, and affidavits were attested and notarized without verification. Lawyers relied on references from accountants, consultants, or GST practitioners, which the Court noted in its indirect tax roster.
A similar issue had arisen in W.P.(C) 685/2025 (M/s S R Enterprises v. Pr. Commissioner of GST, East Delhi), where firms and affidavits were found to be fictitious. The Court had directed registration of an FIR, recalled previous orders, and instructed counsel to verify documents through the GST portal. It had also directed inquiries into offences of forgery and fabrication under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
In the present case, a similar situation was found. Mr. Verma, counsel, had disclosed that the matter was referred to him by an accountant, and no observations were made against him.
The Court directed Mr. Ashish Chaurasia, running M/s AMR & Associates, to remain present in Court on the next hearing. His contact details were provided, and the order was to be served via WhatsApp and through the local SHO.
The bench also directed communication of the order to Mr. Sanjay Lao, standing counsel (Criminal), and the SHO . Mr. Chaurasia was permitted to file an affidavit if he chose to do so. The matter was listed for 21st November 2025.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
