The Union Of INDIA vs. Biraj Poddar

Held

The High Court held that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the complaint. The Court found that the summons relied upon by the petitioner were not accompanied by any material demonstrating due service and acknowledgment by the respondent. In the absence of proof of service, the allegation of deliberate disobedience or evasion of summons could not be sustained solely on the basis of issuance. Therefore, the Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the complaint would not preclude the petitioner from issuing fresh summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, provided they are duly served and proof of service is maintained. The Court also stated it expressed no opinion on the merits of the investigation or the existence of any liability or offence.

Facts

The Union of India, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CX Itanagar, filed a criminal petition challenging an order dated 27.01.2026 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia. The Magistrate had dismissed the petitioner's complaint alleging offences under Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner's case was that the respondent failed to appear despite repeated summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning alleged availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint for lack of proof of service of summons on the respondent, finding no prima facie case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class erred in dismissing the complaint for alleged offences under Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, when the petitioner had issued summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the respondent failed to appear. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that summons were issued multiple times, and in the absence of proof of service, they should be permitted to issue fresh summons and proceed with the investigation. They relied on the issuance of summons and the respondent's non-appearance. Respondent's contention: The respondent supported the impugned order, arguing that they were not duly served with the summons and therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was justified and did not require interference.