M/S Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting LTD And 3 Others vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court held that the summoning order dated 8.10.2025, passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Complaint Case No. 18016 of 2025, was set aside. The Court found merit in the argument that the summoning order was passed without affording the applicants an opportunity of hearing, which is a requirement under the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS. The Court noted the submission by the counsel for respondent no. 2 that the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and that the matter should be remanded for a fresh decision after hearing both parties. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The applicants are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 25.5.2026, on which date a fresh order shall be passed after hearing both parties. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the primary issue of procedural irregularity was addressed.

Facts

The applicants, M/s Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. and others, sought to quash a summoning order dated 8.10.2025 issued by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in a complaint case filed by the Union of India. The summoning order was under Section 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and CGST. The applicants argued that the summoning order was passed without prior notice or an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS. They further contended that the alleged violations stemmed from show cause notices dated 10.2.2015 and 26.12.2015, which led to an assessment order dated 30.6.2021. This assessment order was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Authority in Excise Appeal No. 55779 of 2023. The applicants asserted that since the assessment order was annulled, the criminal proceedings based on the same foundation were not tenable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summoning order dated 8.10.2025, issued by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, under Section 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and CGST, is liable to be quashed for being passed without affording the applicants an opportunity of hearing, in light of the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS? (Question of law) 2. Whether criminal proceedings under Section 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and CGST are maintainable when the underlying assessment order, which formed the basis for these proceedings, has been set aside by the Appellate Authority? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that the summoning order was passed in violation of the proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS, which mandates an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. They further contended that the assessment order, which was the basis for the criminal complaint, had been set aside by the Appellate Authority, rendering the current criminal proceedings untenable. They relied on the fact that the Appellate Authority's order was itself under challenge by the department before the High Court. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The counsel for the CGST submitted that there is no requirement for giving an opportunity of hearing prior to issuing summons under the CGST Act. The counsel for respondent no. 2 (likely the complainant) acknowledged that the impugned order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants, in compliance with Section 223 of the BNSS, and suggested remanding the matter.