Disposed¶24

Gaurav S/O. Ranjit Gupta v. the Union of India, T Hrough Secretary Finance and 3 Others

Bombay HC23 Dec 2025WP/571/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petitions 05/2021 and 571/2021, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, decided 23-12-2025; Dee Vee Projects Ltd.; Gaurav Ranjit Gupta; Union of India; Section 132(5) Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017; prosecution complaint neither filed nor intended; complaint allegedly pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur; Joint Commissioner certification that company existed at registered address; first prayer satisfied; liberty granted to avail legal remedies; writ petitions disposed of.

What did the court decide?

First prayer (that no prosecution complaint be filed/pending) declared satisfied on the respondents' statement; petitioners granted liberty to avail remedies as available in law; both writ petitions disposed of in above terms. ¶24

Gaurav S/O. Ranjit Gupta Vs the Union of India, T Hrough… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have filed, or intend to file, a prosecution complaint against the petitioners in the criminal proceedings alleged to have been initiated on the ground that the company did not exist. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

In Criminal Writ Petition No.05 of 2021, in view of the respondents' affidavit stating that no prosecution complaint has been filed and none is intended, the first prayer is satisfied.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.05 of 2021 were granted liberty to avail remedy as is available in law, and the writ petition was disposed of in those terms.

¶23

Key takeaways

In Criminal Writ Petition No.571 of 2021, the statement of counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 that no prosecution complaint has been filed nor is intended was accepted, and prayer clause (a) was held satisfied.ratio¶36
Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.571 of 2021 were granted liberty to avail remedy as is available in law, and the writ petition was disposed of in those terms.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ., 23 December 2025) disposed of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos. 05 and 571 of 2021 (Dee Vee Projects Ltd. and anr.; Gaurav Ranjit Gupta vs. Union of India and ors.). The petitions concerned criminal proceedings said to have been initiated on the allegation that the company did not exist, including a complaint purportedly filed under Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, allegedly pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. By order dated 05/12/2025 the Court recorded the petitioners' contention that the Joint Commissioner had certified that the company existed at its registered address at the relevant time. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 then filed a compliance affidavit, and their counsel stated on instructions that no prosecution complaint had been filed and none was intended. Accepting the statement, the Court held the first prayer/prayer clause (a) satisfied, granted the petitioners liberty to avail such remedies as are available in law, and disposed of both writ petitions.

¶1

1 9-Cri.WP-5-21,571-21.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-NAG:15002-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.05 OF 2021

¶5

Dee Vee Projects Ltd. And anr. vs. Union of India and anr.

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.571 OF 2021

¶8

Gaurav Ranjit Gupta vs. Union of India and ors.

¶9

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶11

Court's or Judge's orders

¶12

appearances, Court's orders of directions

¶13

and Registrar's orders

¶14

- - - - – - -- - - - - - – -

¶15

Shri Firdos Mirza, Senior Advocate a/b Ms Rozat Akolawala, Advocate for petitioners.

¶16

Shri S. N. Bhattad, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶17

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 23^rd December, 2025

¶18

Criminal WP/05/2021

¶19

Leave to correct the name of petitioner No.2 in affidavit dated 16/12/2025 is granted. Amendment shall be carried out out forthwith.

¶20

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed affidavit in compliance to order dated 05/12/2025.

¶21

In paragraph (3) it is stated that prosecution complaint has neither been filed nor the respondents intend to file prosecution complaint against the petitioner.

¶22

In view of above, the first prayer is satisfied. So far as other prayers are concerned, the petitioner seeks liberty to avail remedy as is available in law.

¶23

Liberty granted as prayed.

¶24

Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶25

Criminal WP/571/2021

¶26

On 05/12/2025, following order was passed :

¶27

“ Heard for sometime.

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioners that criminal proceedings was initiated by the respondents alleging that the company did not exist. The proceedings, according to the

¶29

2 9-Cri.WP-5-21,571-21.odt

¶30

petitioners, is subject matter of the present writ petitions. Pending petitions, the Joint Commissioner of respondents has certified that at the relevant time, the company existed at the registered address and that the company has not committed any fraudulent act to evade the tax. Rather, the Joint Commissioner certified that the company has paid all its taxes.

¶31

In view of this development, petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 to 4, requesting them to withdraw the complaint filed under Section 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, which is allegedly pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that no such proceeding is pending. However, he seeks time to take instructions and make a statement. Granted.

¶33

Stand over to 12.12.2025.”

¶34

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4, on instructions, submits that prosecution complaint has neither been filed nor the respondents intend to file prosecution complaint against the petitioner.

¶35

The statement is accepted.

¶36

In view of aforesaid statement, prayer clause (a) is satisfied. So far as other prayers are concerned, the petitioner seeks liberty to avail remedy as is available in law.

¶37

Liberty granted as prayed.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶39

(Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)

¶40

Asmita

Gaurav S/O. Ranjit Gupta v. the Union of India, T Hrough Secretary Finance and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav S/O. Ranjit Gupta v. the Union of India, T Hrough Secretary Finance and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Rajendra Khalatkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Senior Police Inspector, Nandanwan Police Station, Nagpur

Murli @ Murlidhar S/O Laxmanrao Yeole Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Pulgaon, Tah. Deoli, Dist. Wardha

Rahul S/O Arunrao Bhoyar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Irrigation and Revenue, Mumbai and Others

Haridas Ramji Parteki @ Parteti Thr His Next Friend Kishor S/O Haridas Parteki @ Parteti Vs State of Maharshtra through Police Station Officer Gittikhadan Police Station Nagpur

Suresh Tukaram Manwar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary, Home Department, Martralaya, Mumbai

Suresh Tukaram Manwar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary , Home Dept, Mantralaya, Mumbai