Case Law Details
Rohit Gupta Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court considered a writ petition challenging an FIR registered under various provisions of the IPC alleging GST evasion. The petitioner argued that the FIR was malicious and an abuse of process, primarily on the ground that no prior sanction, as required under Section 132(6) of the GST Act, had been obtained from the Commissioner before initiating prosecution. It was further contended that the issue of alleged tax evasion had already been settled by a prior judgment of the Court, and therefore, the basis of the FIR no longer existed. The petitioner also relied on departmental instructions and notifications to argue that prosecution for GST violations should be initiated through a complaint and not by lodging an FIR.
Upon hearing the parties and examining the record, the Court held that the matter required consideration and issued notice to the respondents, granting time for filing counter and rejoinder affidavits. As an interim measure, the Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR until further orders. At the same time, the Court permitted the investigation to continue but restrained the authorities from filing a charge sheet or police report before the competent court during the pendency of the writ petition. The case was directed to be listed for further hearing, with procedural timelines fixed for completion of pleadings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. Ram Kaushik along with Mr. Abhishek Ghosh, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pranjal Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Sadhna Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents 1 and 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Rohit Gupta has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20.12.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-3 Rishipal Singh and registered as Case Crime No. 0084 of 2025, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Raisatti, District-Sambhal.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition submits that in view of the facts and circumstances as have emerged on record, the impugned FIR is wholly malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court. As such, the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR cannot be sustained.
5. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that no sanction as contemplated under Section 132(6) of the GST Act was obtained from the Commissioner before lodging the FIR.
6. It is then contended that the issue as to whether, petitioner has evaded payment of GST Tax or not stands settled by way of judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 1016 of 2026 (M/s Chand Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another). According to the learned counsel for petitioner, Rohit Gupta, the writ petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s Chand Traders, the writ petitioner in aforementioned writ petition. On the strength of above-noted submission, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the very basis of FIR is non-existent.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has then invited the attention of Court to the instruction dated 01.09.2022 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Wingh, New Delhi as well as the notification dated 06.09.2023 issued by the Additional Commissioner (GST), State Tax, U.P., Lucknow. Copies of the same have been placed before Court and the same are taken on record. He has first referred to clause-3 of aforesaid notification and on basis thereof, he contends that prior sanction has to be obtained before prosecution can be launched. Reference was then made to clauses 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 and on basis thereof, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that only a complaint can be filed for criminal prosecution of an accused for violating the GST Act or the Rules framed thereunder. He has first referred to Clause-3 of the aforesaid notification and submits that only a complaint shall lie in case of evasion of GST Act. As such, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR is wholly illegal and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for petitioner would thus submit that the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR is manifestly illegal and therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.
8. When confronted with above, the learned Standing Counsel representing State-respondents 1 & 2 submits that she be granted a short time to file counter affidavit.
9. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents 1 and 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.
10. Notice on behalf of State respondents 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned Standing Counsel
11. Issue notices to first informant-respondent-3.
12. Steps for service upon first informant-respondent-3 shall be taken by the learned counsel for petitioners within the time period prescribed under the Rules of Court.
13. All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within 6 weeks.
14. Petitioner will have 2 weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavits.
15. List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 21.05.2026.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0084 of 2025, under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Raisatti, District-Sambhal.
17. We are not unmindful of the judgment of Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, therefore, we direct that the investigation of concerned case crime number may go on but the requisite charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS shall not be submitted by the Investigating Officer before Court till the pendency of present writ petition.
18. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.
19. Assignment, if any, stands discharged.
Author Bio
