Sanjeev Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The applicant, Sanjeev Agarwal, filed an application under Section 528 BNSS before the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash a summoning order dated March 2, 2024, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 4280 of 2023. This case, titled Union of India Vs. Sanjeev Agarwal, was initiated under Sections 132(1)(a), 137, and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and was being tried before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The applicant's counsel informed the Court that the grounds raised in the application, specifically concerning territorial jurisdiction, had not been presented before the trial court. Consequently, the applicant sought permission to withdraw the application with the liberty to raise these issues before the trial court at a later stage.

Held

The Court did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised by the applicant, including the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The applicant's counsel explicitly stated that these grounds were not being pressed before the High Court, as the issue of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised before the trial court. The applicant sought and was granted permission to withdraw the application with the liberty to raise the aforementioned issues before the trial court at an appropriate stage. Therefore, no finding was reached on the validity of the summoning order or the proceedings, nor was any principle of law established for future citation. The operative direction was to allow the withdrawal of the application with liberty to the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summoning order dated March 2, 2024, and the proceedings in Case No. 4280 of 2023, under Sections 132(1)(a), 137, and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, are liable to be quashed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction. Contentions: Petitioner (Sanjeev Agarwal): The applicant sought to quash the summoning order and proceedings, raising grounds related to territorial jurisdiction. However, the applicant's counsel did not press these grounds before the High Court, stating that the issue of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised before the trial court. The prayer was to withdraw the application with liberty to raise these issues before the trial court. Revenue (Union of India): No arguments were recorded for the opposite party (Union of India) in the provided judgment.