FIR and Criminal Proceedings Under BNS Quashed Where CGST Act Proceedings Already Initiated and Applicant Exonerated in Adjudication — Allahabad HC Holds GST Act Is Complete Code for Investigation and Prosecution of GST Offences

The Allahabad High Court has quashed a charge sheet, cognizance order and entire criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita arising from allegations of fake ITC and bogus invoices, holding that where proceedings have already been initiated under the CGST Act (a special statute) and the applicant has been exonerated in the adjudication order on merits, initiation of parallel criminal proceedings under the general criminal law is without authority of law and an abuse of process. The ruling by Justice Saurabh Srivastava in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 30974/2026 (Kapil Chugh, decided 11.08.2026) follows the Supreme Court’s principles in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh and Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.

The applicant had been exonerated by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Lucknow in the adjudication order against M/s Multicom International, which found no direct evidence establishing his involvement. More than 18 months later, the State Assistant Commissioner filed a complaint under BNS provisions, an FIR was registered, and the applicant was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 345(2) BNS — all arising from the same allegations of fake ITC and forged invoices. The applicant had separately been arrested by DGGI Ahmedabad and was granted bail by the Ahmedabad court which noted his exoneration in 41 of 45 entities. This Court had earlier, in Habeas Corpus proceedings, set aside the State police’s arrest as a second FIR for the same offence and held that the CGST Act is a complete code.

The court held that Sections 4 and 5 of BNSS prohibit investigation and recognise that offences under special enactments are to be investigated and dealt with in the manner prescribed by those enactments. The CGST Act contains its own Chapter XIX governing offences and prosecution, including Section 132 which specifically covers fake invoices, fraudulent ITC availment and all allied offences forming the basis of the FIR. Applying the Supreme Court’s yardstick in Radheshyam Kejriwal — that where allegation in both the adjudication and prosecution proceedings is identical and the exoneration in adjudication is on merits, continuation of criminal trial would be an abuse of process — the entire proceedings were quashed. The Revenue’s reliance on Radhika Agarwal (SC) and Naryan K. Patodia was distinguished.

- 2026-juristway.com-2527-HC(Allahabad)-GST  |  High Court of Allahabad  |  Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 30974/2026  |  11.08.2026