Deepak Kumar Daiya Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Summary : The Calcutta High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal by Deepak Kumar Daiya against the Single Judge’s refusal to stay or quash an FIR alleging offences under Sections 132 and 133 of the West Bengal GST enactment as well as provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The appellant contended that Section 132(6) required prior sanction from the Commissioner and invoked a notification dated 1 September 2022 concerning a ₹500 lakh threshold for prosecution. He relied on Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors., (2025) 6 SCC 545, concerning GST offences and arrest safeguards, and Deepak Singhal Vs Union of India and Ors., 2024 Supreme (MP) 423, concerning the use of general criminal law without invoking the GST prosecution machinery.
The State responded that the FIR was not confined to GST allegations but also invoked Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS. Accepting the significance of those additional allegations for the limited interim issue, the Division Bench held that the procedural requirements under the SGST Act could not, at this premature stage, render the FIR entirely invalid. It therefore upheld the refusal of ad interim protection and dismissed the appeal. However, the Court expressly left open the appellant’s objections to the joinder of GST offences, Commissioner’s sanction and notification compliance for trial or other appropriate proceedings, and clarified that the merits of the parties’ contentions had not been conclusively decided.
Cases Discussed
- Radhika Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors. (Supreme Court); (2025) 6 SCC 545; 27/02/2025 — Cited by the appellant concerning the categorisation of offences and the ₹500 lakh threshold under GST. The Division Bench recorded the submission but did not conclusively decide its application.
- Deepak Singhal Vs Union of India and Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court); W.P. No. 21641 of 2024; 11/09/2024; 2024 Supreme (MP) 423 — Cited by the appellant for the proposition that GST authorities cannot bypass GST prosecution safeguards by invoking only IPC offences. The Calcutta High Court did not finally resolve the applicability of this precedent to the mixed GST/BNS FIR.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to grant stay and/or quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner at the behest of the State for alleged violation of Sections 132/133 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the provisions of Section 132(6) of the said Act, prior sanction of the Commissioner is to be obtained prior to registration of an FIR for offences committed under the said Act. Moreover, by dint of the concerned Notification dated September 1, 2022 issued by the appropriate authorities, which has statutory force, unless the monetary limit of the fraudulently obtained refund is more than Rs.500 lakhs, no question of prosecution normally arises.
3. Learned counsel sites Radhika Agarwal –Vs. – Union of India and Ors. reported at (2025) 6 SCC 545, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that non-cognizable offences have been made bailable and that only when the offence falls under the limited categories specified in Clauses (a) to (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the WBSGST Act and when the amount of tax evaded, amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized, or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds to Rs.500 lakhs, that the offence is non-bailable and cognizable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further cites a coordinate Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Deepak Singhal –Vs. – Union of India and Ors. reported at 2024 Supreme (MP) 423 where it was observed that the GST Act, 2017 is a special legislation which holistically deals with procedure, penalties and offences relating to GST and the GST Authorities cannot be permitted to bypass procedure for launching prosecution under the GST Act, 2017 and invoke provisions of the Indian Penal Code only, without pressing into service penal provisions under the GST Act and that too without obtaining sanction from the Commissioner under Section 132(6) of GST Act.
5. Learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent authorities, contends that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the FIR contained alleged offences not only under the SGST Act, 2017 but also under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the materials before us, we find that the alleged offences committed by the petitioner/appellant, as per the complaint and the consequential FIR lodged against the appellant, are not confined to violations of provisions of the SGST Act, 2017 but also traverse into the domain of offences under Sections 316(2)/316(5)/318(4)/336(2)/336(3)/337/340(2)/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. Thus, the paradigm and rigours available within the contemplation of the SGST Act are not applicable to the FIR in its entirety, vitiating the same.
7. In any event, if the FIR results in any trial, during such trial, or at any subsequent stage under the appropriate provisions of BNSS, the appellant would be at liberty to assail the clubbing of the appropriate Sections under the SGST Act without prior permission being taken from the Commissioner and/or compliance with the notification and statues in question. Despite the same, since provisions of the BNS have been also incorporated the FIR, it cannot be said at this premature stage that the FIR is entirely vitiated for alleged non-compliance of the 2017 Act. In such view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the learned Single Judge refused to grant any ad interim protection to the petitioner/appellant.
8. Hence, MAT 1916 of 2016 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned order dated October 22, 2026 passed in WPA 20184 of 2026.
9. Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of.
10. We make it clear that the merits of the contentions of the parties have not been conclusively decided by this Court and it will be open to the parties to agitate all the points taken in the appeal on their own merits before the Writ Court and other forums.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
12. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of this Court.
