Eleven months after a Rs 3 crore tax notice landed on his doorstep, a Kanpur security guard earning Rs 10,000 a month is still reportedly trying to convince the system he never ran the business. Om Shukla received the GST recovery notice last year over a firm called Om Enterprises, which the department claims did more than Rs 17 crore in business. Shukla says he has never run any such firm. Nearly a year on, he has lost his ration card, his government benefits, and his job, and the case is only now reaching the desk of the Crime Branch.
The Notice That Started It All
As per the last year ANI report, the tax demand, dated September 21, 2025, said Shukla's firm, Om Enterprises, had done business worth more than Rs 17 crore. But Shukla denied owning any such firm. He worked as a night security guard for Rs 10,000 salary. After the GST notice, his ration card was cancelled, the government benefits attached to it stopped coming and because the tax liability sat on his name, banks also denied loans.
Eleven Months of Doors Closing
In the last one year, Shukla filed a police complaint, went to a GST office with a local traders' representative for support, only to be told to first submit a formal response to the notice. He wrote directly to GST headquarters in Delhi. Nothing moved.
He then reached out to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's office, hoping a higher authority could intervene. That effort also repotedly did not bring relief.
A Possible Break, Almost a Year Later
As per an India Today report, Kanpur Police Commissioner Raghubir Lal has now directed the Crime Branch to look into the case, after Shukla approached him on Tuesday, August 18, nearly eleven months after the notice was first issued.
According to the Police Commissioner's office, the working theory is identity theft, someone allegedly got hold of Shukla's documents and PAN card and used them to run a business in his name. The Police Commissioner has ordered strict action against whoever is responsible. Shukla, for his part, is convinced someone with access to his personal papers used them deliberately.
A local traders' body has also taken up Shukla's case. It is preparing a formal response on his behalf to send to the Central GST authorities, in the hope of getting his tax liability cleared.
The group has also turned the spotlight on the GST Department itself, accusing officials of negligence. They have argued that activating a GST Identification Number (GSTIN) is supposed to involve several layers of verification, including a check of the actual business premises. If that process had been followed properly, they ask, how could a man earning Rs 10,000 a month have been shown running a business worth crores?
