FIR Invoking BNS Offences Not Quashed for Want of Section 132(6) Sanction: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court refused interim protection against an FIR alleging State GST and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita offences, holding the Commissioner’s sanction objection could be raised later in any trial.

The Calcutta High Court has held that an FIR alleging offences under both the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) cannot be treated as wholly vitiated at the threshold for want of the Commissioner’s prior sanction under Section 132(6). It dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge’s refusal to stay or quash the FIR. [Deepak Kumar Daiya v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST]

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee heard the appeal against the Single Judge’s order dated 22 Oct 2026 in WPA 20184 of 2026. The FIR was registered at the instance of the State for alleged violation of Sections 132 and 133 of the State GST Act.

The appellant argued that Section 132(6) requires the Commissioner’s sanction before an FIR is registered, and that under a notification dated 1 Sep 2022, which he said has statutory force, prosecution does not normally arise unless the fraudulently obtained refund exceeds ₹500 lakh. He relied on Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) and on Deepak Singhal v. Union of India and Ors. (2024), where the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that GST authorities cannot bypass the prosecution procedure in the GST Act by invoking only penal code provisions without sanction.

The Government Pleader pointed out that the FIR also alleged offences under the BNS. The Court found that the complaint and FIR covered Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, so the safeguards of the SGST Act did not govern the FIR in its entirety. It could not be said at this premature stage that the FIR was entirely vitiated for non-compliance with the 2017 Act.

If the FIR leads to a trial, the appellant may, during the trial or later under the BNSS, challenge the inclusion of SGST Act offences without the Commissioner’s permission or without compliance with the notification. The appeal was dismissed on contest, affirming the refusal of interim protection, with all points left open before the Writ Court and other forums.

2026-juristway.com-3295-HC(Calcutta)-GST