The Bombay High Court has taken serious note of allegations of corruption against a State Goods and Service Tax (GST) Officer while hearing a petition involving a seemingly routine GST registration issue.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe expressed serious concern over the allegations. If claims were true, they would constitute a “very serious matter,” especially considering that the underlying issue—change of registered address—was relatively minor.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Mark Solutions, challenging an order dated 20 November 2025, whereby the authorities rejected its application for amendment of its registered business address. The petitioner contended that despite carrying out a fully operational business from the premises, the request was unjustifiably denied.
Buy Now: GST Monthly E-Compilation : March 2026
During the proceedings, the petitioner brought to the Court’s attention a prior complaint dated 3 October 2025 addressed to the Commissioner of State Tax, alleging a demand for illegal gratification of ₹50,000 in connection with the address amendment.
The Bench remarked that it is difficult to believe that a small entrepreneur would make such serious allegations on oath unless there was substance to the claim. The Court emphasized that citizens who come forward against corruption deserve protection and serious consideration.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the complaint was handled by the department. It noted that the Commissioner had filed an affidavit granting a “clean chit” to the concerned officer. However, the Bench found this explanation wholly unsatisfactory.
In strong words, the Court termed the statements made in the affidavit as “totally unacceptable” and even described the departmental handling of the complaint as an “absolute farce.”
The Bench further observed that such allegations should not have been casually closed at the departmental level. Instead, the matter ought to have been referred to the Anti-Corruption Bureau for an independent investigation.
Taking note of the deficiencies in the inquiry, the Court directed the Commissioner of State Tax to re-examine whether the rejection of the address amendment application was justified, especially after inspection of the business premises File a detailed affidavit explaining the reasoning behind the impugned order. Disclose whether any similar complaints have been received against the concerned officer.
The Court also made it clear that there should be no attempt to shield officials in cases involving allegations of corruption.
The matter has been adjourned and is scheduled for further hearing on 23 April 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: Mark Solutions Versus State Of Maharashtra
Citation: JURISHOUR-892-HC-2026(BOM)
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 16513 OF 2025
Date: 16/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Brijesh Pathak
Counsel For Respondent: Shruti D. Vyas Addl.G.P
Read More: ITR-4 Update Mandates Disclosure of Investments for Presumptive Taxpayers to Curb Underreporting
