Goods and Service-Tax Act, 2017
S. 132 : Punishment for certain offences-Fraud-Fraudulent misuse of Aadhaar and Permanent Account No (PAN)-Identity theft- Strictures-Opened a bank account and obtained GST registration-Opened a bank account- Inaction by statutory authorities and law enforcement agencies-Directions for cancellation and redressal-Compensation denied-Liberty to file criminal complaint- Citizens of the Country who toils hard to make both ends meet cannot be made to run from pillar to post by leaving his livelihood to defend various proceedings arising of fraud by an individual impersonating the Petitioner’s identity-Cost of Rs 10000 each is imposed on respondents Nos 1, (Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), 2 (Chief Commissioner Gujarat Sate GST) 5,(Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai, 6(Manager Union Bank of India) and 7 (Commissioner of State Tax Government of Gujarat. The Respondents Nos 1 and 6 are directed to pay Cost of Rs25,000 each to the petitioner. [Aadhaar Act, 2016, S. 7, Income-tax Act. 1961, 139A, 139AA, Goods and Service-Tax Act, 2017 S.132, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, S.138, Art. 226]
The petitioner, a small-time businessman from Mumbai, approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 after suffering repeated harassment and criminal proceedings due to the fraudulent misuse of his Aadhaar and PAN details by an unknown person who opened a bank account and obtained GST registration in his name. The petitioner sought cancellation of the bogus Aadhaar, PAN, GST registration, and bank account, as well as restoration of his own identity credentials.
1. Whether statutory authorities failed to act despite being informed of identity theft involving the petitioner’s Aadhaar and PAN?
2. Whether the bank violated KYC and Aadhaar authentication norms while opening the fraudulent account?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226, including cancellation of fraudulent records and quashing of proceedings?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the hardship caused by the inaction of authorities?

The Court expressed strong displeasure at the inaction of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) , Income Tax Department, GST authorities, and the concerned bank, noting that despite being statutory and regulatory bodies, they failed to act on multiple complaints for over five years. No FIRs were filed, no corrective action was taken, and criminal proceedings continued against the petitioner based on forged credentials.

The Court emphasized that Respondent No.6 (Union Bank of India) failed to conduct mandatory Aadhaar e-KYC authentication under RBI’s Master Directions and Aadhaar Authentication Regulations, 2016. UIDAI and Income Tax Department failed to protect the identity of the citizen or initiate criminal action despite being aware of the fraud. GST authorities acted punitively against the petitioner without verifying the genuineness of the registration. Even police authorities took no concrete steps after the petitioner filed a complaint. However, the Court refrained from granting compensation, instead directing the respondents to take appropriate criminal action against the impersonator and to restore the petitioner’s identity. Allowing the writ petition the Court directed statutory authorities to initiate investigation, lodge appropriate criminal complaints, and take corrective action to redress the petitioner’s grievances. It strongly criticized the inaction and apathy of regulatory bodies in responding to identity theft and emphasized the need for accountability. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue other appropriate remedies, if required. The Court also observed that “This is indeed a very sad state of affairs where a citizen of this country was made to run from pillar to post for seeking redressal of his grievances where none of the authorities entrusted for enforcing and regulating their respective acts took any action . We hope that such inaction is not repeated in the future and that the authorities of the Respondents would take appropriate timely action when such fraud is brought to their notice”. The Court also directed the Respondents to pay Cost of Rs 10000 each is imposed on respondents Nos 1, (Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), 2 (Chief Commissioner Gujarat Sate GST) 5,(Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai , 6(Manager Union Bank of India) and 7 (Commissioner of State Tax Government of Gujarat . The Respondents Nos 1 and 6 are directed to pay Cost of Rs 25,000 each to the petitioner . (W P No. 3586 of 2021, Judgment dated 21 July 2025)
Vilas Prabhakar Lad v. UIDAI & Ors. (Bom.)(HC) [www.itatonline.org]
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak & Hon’ble Shri Justice Jitendra Jain]