Delhi District Court
Kapil Arora vs Central Goods Service Tax North on 9 June, 2025
DLSH010074192024 Page 1 of 12
CR No. 225/2025
Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05,
NEW DELHI, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 225/2025
In the matter of :-
Kapil Arora,
S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Arora,
R/o 30/13, 3rd Floor, East Patel Nagar,
Central Delhi, New Delhi-110008.
.........Revisionist
(accused before the Ld. Trial Court)
(through Sh. Lalit Valecha, Advocate)
Versus
CGST, Delhi North,
CR Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
.....Respondent
(complainant before the
Ld. Trial Court)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 26.04.2025.
Date when judgment reserved : 02.06.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.06.2025.
JUDGMENT:-
1. The present revision petition is filed u/s. 438 BNSS 2023 on behalf of revisionist / accused against order dated 2.04.2025 passed by Ld. Magistrate in case bearing File No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6731/2024-AE-DGARM-CGST-DEL(N)/ 28050, titled DLSH010074192024 Page 2 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North Kapil Arora Vs CGST North, vide which the application of the revisionist for .... was DISMISSED.
2. The impugned order, which is under challenge by way of the present revision petition is reproduced as under :
"This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant, Kapil Arora for true facts to be taken on record and seeking direction of this Court to affix responsibility and compensate the applicant for his liberty curtailed.
Present: Shri Aditya Singla, Id. SSC for the Department with Id.
Counsels, Shri Siddharth Saxena, Shri Rajat Kumar and Shri Vishab Kumawat. Shri Lalit Valecha, Ms. Tanya Bali, Ms. Shivani Tiwari and Shri Kunal Insa, Id. Counsels for the applicant/accused.
1. Arguments on the aforesaid application have already been heard.
2. It is submitted by Id. Counsel for the applicant that accused was arrested by officials of CGST (North) on 23.10.2024 and his bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024. Applicant/accused was granted bail by Id. Sessions Court on 27.11.2024 with two sureties. It is submitted that despite releasing the applicant/accused, this Court called verification of the sureties and kept the release of the applicant/accused on hold till 28.11.2024 despite the request to release the applicant temporarily subject to the verification and this Court has overlooked the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued in "in Re Policy Strategy for grant of Bail" SMWP (Criminal) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023" . It is further stated that verification report was filed by the authorities on 28.11.2024 and applicant/accused could not be released as wrong file number was mentioned and prayed that responsibility be fixed and accused be compensated.
3. Record perused.
4. Para no.5 of the judgment of "in Re Policy Strategy for grant of Bail SMWP (Criminal) No. 04/2021 dated 31.01.2023" is reproduced hereinunder :
"5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties."
5. In my humble opinion, there was no intentional error on the part of the court staff and no application for amendment of the bail order of this Court dated 14.11.2024 was filed by the applicant/accused. Present application was filed only on 30.11.2024. Vide order dated 29.11.2024, Ahlmad was warned to be careful. Wrong file number was mentioned inadvertently and the error was rectified and accused was released on 29.11.2024. Regarding not releasing the accused on temporary basis by this Court on 27.11.2024, above said direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not mandatorily directs the Court to DLSH010074192024 Page 3 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North temporary release applicant/accused. Applicant/accused was granted bail by Id. Sessions Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two sureties in the like amount subject to satisfaction of CJM/ACJM/JMFC/Duty Magistrate and one of the condition was "Applicant/accused shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/Investigating Agency". So, in the opinion of the Court, verification of address of accused and surety was necessary as offence alleged were grave and serious in nature.
6. In view the above, the present application is dismissed being without any merits. Copy of this order be given dasti to all concerned."
(emphasis supplied)
3. The following prayer has been made in the revision petition:
"A. Pass appropriate orders thereby calling TCR in CASE FILE NO:-GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/6731/2024-AE-DGARM-CGST - DEL(N) TITLED AS "KAPIL ARORA VS CGST NORTH"
B. Pass appropriate order setting aside the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Ld. CJM, Patiala House Court, thereby, affixing the responsibility of the IO and officials CGST North; C. Pass appropriate order directing the respondent CGST North to compensate the revisionist adequately for curtailing his liberty due to not bringing on record the custody warrant with correct file number despite granted bail;"
4. Grounds of challenge: The impugned order has been challenged on the following grounds (reproduced to show the intent behind filing the present revision petition, specially Ground III):
"I. Non-application of judicial mind i. The impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks application of judicial mind and has been passed in a mechanical manner and lacks proper analysis.
ii. Because before the official arrest the accused was under the custody of GST officials from the commencement of the search/raid was conducted by the GST official/ Respondent. iii. The actual case of the prosecution is that the GST authority seized the stock of mobile phones and other electronics on mere assumptions that the revisionist might sell the goods without charging GST. There was no occasion for the respondent to come to that conclusion that the Revisionist might sell the goods without GST, without any proof to it. II. Erroneous interpretation of legal principles i. Despite releasing the Revisionist/Accused, Ld. Trialcourt called verification of sureties and kept the release on hold till 28.11.2024.Because of the wrong file number filed on the release warrant, the applicant/revisionist could not be released.
ii. The Ld. Trial Court has overlooked the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued "in Re policy strategy for grant of Bail" SMWP (Criminal) No.04/2021 dated DLSH010074192024 Page 4 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North 31.01.2023 of which para 5 states:
5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.
vi. Because, the revisionist was not released due to the fact that the original custody warrant was not brough on record/judicial file and despite getting the bail for mere reason of verification of sureties curtails the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as the revisionist had to face unnecessary detention for two extra days due to mentioning of wrong file number on his release warrants. III. Incomplete investigation and possibility of witness tampering i. The search conducted was unauthorized and illegal as there was lack of justification, insufficient material on records to prove "Reason to believe" that such search/ raid was necessary.
ii. Because no solid grounds were provided or mentioned in either of the panchnamas that indicated the legal basis of authorization for the search. iii. That there was no proper and independent analysis made by the authority and none of the evidence on record to prove that the revisionist had made sale of worth Rs. 1284 crores from 2018 to 2024 and evaded GST of Rs. 200 crores. Therefore, authority had no solid basis to prove but the alleged statement of the revisionist was not recorded under duress and coercion. iv. That the recovery of amount Rs. 2,18,00,000/- from the residence and the shop have nothing doing with the GST.
v. Nothing incriminating has been recovered at the instance of the revisionist. vi. The stock lying at the shop of the applicant has already been seized by the authority and there is no occasion for the authority to say that the applicant may have sold the seized products without charging GST, whereas, the applicant has valid GST registration and has been filing regular returns.
vii. That the time assessment has not been made by the authority, there is no occasion for the authority to invoke section 132 of CGST Act. Reliance is placed on the judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Goel &Ors. Vs Directorate of GST Intelligence Gurugram Bail Appl. 458/2021. (Relevant Para 38, 39 & 40). viii. It is submitted that the maximum punishment could be imposed under section 132 of the GST Act, 2017 is only an imprisonment for five years. Therefore, section 41A of CrPC/35(3) of BNSS was to be applied in the present matter before ant arrest. As such there is violation of direction of Apex Court of India as given in Arnesh Kumar VS. State of Bihar and also in Satender Kumar Antil. GST official had not followed the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as arresting accused without giving him notice u/s 41A of CrPC/ 35of BNSS. Arresting officer has committed contempt of court."
Arguments
5. Notice of the revision petition was issued to CGST Delhi North, however, no one appeared for the respondent, hence arguments were heard on 2.6.2025 on behalf of the revisionist. The arguments were addressed by Sh. Lalit Valecha, Ld Counsel for the DLSH010074192024 Page 5 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North revisionist. In the arguments Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions recorded in revision petition and prayed that the impugned order be set aside. Scope of Revision under section 438 BNSS (397 Cr.P.C 1973)
6. Prior to adjudicating the case on its merits, it is essential to delineate the scope and extent of these proceedings as well as the authority vested in this court under section 438 BNSS.
7. Section 438 BNSS read as under:
438. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.
(1)The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on his own bond or bail bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 439.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
8. The wording of the section is verbatim the same as of section 397 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
9. A plain reading of Section 438 of the BNSS clearly indicates that Section 438(1) allows aggrieved parties to challenge the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order issued by the trial court. Such challenges can be brought before a revisional court, namely the High Court or the Sessions Judge, as Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction upon both judicial authorities.
10. Section 438 (2) BNSS prohibits the revision powers under Section 397 (1) BNSS from being used on interlocutory orders in appeals, enquiries, trials, or other proceedings.
DLSH010074192024 Page 6 of 12 CR No. 225/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North This creates an explicit legislative bar against revising such orders.
11. It is well settled law that scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the Trial Court and jurisdiction under section 438 BNSS to be exercised for setting right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law cannot be equated with the power of Appellate Court.
12. As regards the scope of section 397 Cr.P.C (analogous to section 438 BNSS) in judgment titled as 'Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander', (2012) 9 SCC 460 decided on 13.09.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that :-
"8. ....Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law . There has to be a well- founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law......."
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey', Crl. Appeal No.1852 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019, made the following observations :
"8. The scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court (or Sessions Court) under Section 397 Cr.P.C, is limited to the extent of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by an inferior Court. The revisional Court is entitled to look into the regularity of any proceeding before an inferior Court. As reiterated by this Court in a number of cases, the purpose of this revisionsal power is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law."
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjaysinh Ramarao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123 held:
"14. .........Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The DLSH010074192024 Page 7 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction". (emphasis supplied).
15. Scope of revision has been explained in para 9 of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Taron Mohan Vs. State & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine 312 which reads as under:
"9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397 CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is also well settled that while considering the legality, propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion, normally the revising court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in revision considers the material only to satisfy itself about the legality and propriety of the findings, sentence and order and refrains from substituting its own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of evidence. "
16. The precise purpose of Revision is to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order in question and to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. Needless to say, that the power of revision needs to be exercised fairly, rationally and judiciously in order to put right any manifest error of law or jurisdiction. Discussion on the merits of the revision petition:
17. The simple question before this court is whether there is any patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law in the impugned order dated 2.4.2025, which needs to be rectified by this court in the present Revision proceedings?
18. The revision petition prima facie seems to be an effort by the revisionist not only to put undue pressure on the Ld. Trial Court but also on the CGST officers. This court is unable to understand as to how Ground No.III (as reproduced earlier), of the present revision petitions is relevant to challenge the impugned order.
19. Coming to Grounds I and II as mentioned in the revision petition, the same are also devoid of merits, as the Ld Trail Court rightly observed in the impugned order that DLSH010074192024 Page 8 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North there was no intentional error on the part of the court staff and that before filing of the application on 30.11.2024, vide order dated 29.11.2024, Ahlmad had already been warned to be careful. Ld Trail Court observed that wrong file number was mentioned inadvertently and the error was rectified and accused was released on 29.11.2024. The matter should have ended there, but if the revisionist was under the impression that the same was not intentional, it could have approached the court administration on the administrative side, but not on judicial side by way of the present revision petition. Ld Trial court also rightly observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "In Re policy strategy for grant of Bail" SMWP (Criminal) No.04/2021 dated 31.01.2023 does not mandatorily direct the Court to temporary release applicant/accused in all cases. It has been aptly observed by the Ld Trial Court that the applicant/accused was granted bail by Ld. Sessions Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1 lac with two sureties in the like amount subject to satisfaction of CJM/ACJM/JMFC/Duty Magistrate and one of the condition was that "Applicant/accused shall provide the address where he would be residing after his release and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/Investigating Agency". Thus, Ld trial Court committed no error if it formed an opinion that the verification of address of accused and surety was necessary as offence alleged were grave and serious in nature. This court finds no patent error in the impugned order.
20. Conclusion: In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 2.04.2025 is upheld as no patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law is found therein.
Imposition of cost in Criminal Revision
21. Before concluding, I must express this court's deep concern and disappointment regarding the revisionist's insidious and cavalier approach in filing this frivolous DLSH010074192024 Page 9 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North petition. Liberal access to justice should not be misconstrued as an opportunity to create chaos and indiscipline; such petitions should be met with substantial penalties. The integrity of the judicial process will be significantly compromised if such actions are not addressed firmly. Litigants who abuse court procedures should be prepared to face the necessary repercussions.
22. It is important to prevent wealthy litigants 1 from pursuing unnecessary litigation, as these cases can slow down the justice system and delay trials for other litigants. Courts must ensure that the legal system is not misused to obstruct or delay justice. This enables courts to address valid cases promptly and meet the needs of those seeking justice. Imposing real-time costs is essential to ensure access to courts for individuals with legitimate grievances rather than frivolous petitions like this one.
23. The issue that in appropriate cases, costs can also be imposed while dismissing revision petition is no longer res integra. Reliance can be placed upon judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Ghai v. State Crl. M. C. No. 3669/2011 decided on 01.11.2013 and M/s Miracle Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Crl. M. C. No. 4529/2013 decided on 07.11.2013.
Observations of Hon'ble Delhi High Court on imposition of cost in a criminal revision in the matter of Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi v. NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2013 DHC 6114 are reproduced here as under:
22. Imposition of Costs 22.1 Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. The cost should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigants, and the harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigations and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court.
The costs imposed by the Courts must be the real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful person and also considering how long they have compelled the other side to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. In appropriate cases, the Courts may 1 It may be noted that more than 2 crores cash is stated to have been recovered from the revisionist and he is alleged to have evaded more than 200 crores of GST.
DLSH010074192024 Page 10 of 12 CR No. 225/2025Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. The parties raise fanciful claims and contests because the Courts are reluctant to order prosecution. The relevant judgments in support of this preposition are as under:-
22.2 In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, the Supreme Court has held that the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
"52. ...C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. ...
***
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the Defendants or Respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The Appellants in the instant case have harassed the Respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The Appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation."
(Emphasis supplied) 22.3 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false claims and defences as under:-
"82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court's otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled DLSH010074192024 Page 11 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings."
(Emphasis supplied) 22.4 In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court imposed costs of Rs.15.1 lakhs and noted as under:
"6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.
***
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts." (Emphasis supplied)"
Order DLSH010074192024 Page 12 of 12 CR No. 225/2025 Kapil Arora Vs. CGSTT, Delhi North
24. Considering the totality of circumstances and frivolous nature of litigation, I deem it appropriate that the instant revision not only deserves to be dismissed but the revisionist also deserves to be saddled with the cost of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand). The revisionist in the instant matter is therefore, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- with Prime Minister Relief Fund within seven days from the date of the instant order and the receipt thereof be deposited with the Ld. Trial Court, failing which Ld. Trial Court is requested to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the revisionist.
25. With these observations, the present revision stands dismissed.
26. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
27. TCR, if any, be sent back along with copy of this judgment.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH PARTAP
Announced in the open Court PARTAP SINGH LALER
on 9th June 2025 SINGH LALER Date: 2025.06.09
18:08:47 +0530
(Saurabh Partap Singh Laler)
ASJ-05 New Delhi
Patiala House Courts
Delhi/9.6.2025