Ankur Garg vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29853 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Heard Sri Markandey Rai, learned counsel along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the CGST.
The present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned cognizance order dated 29.1.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 1058 of 2024 (Union of India, DGGI Vs. Ankur Garg & Ors), arising out of Case No. 1323 of 2024, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, pending before the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is being proceeded under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, however, complaint was filed by opposite party before the trial court without complying the provisions of Section 223 of BNSS and without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the summoning order has been issued which is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the CGST submits that there is requirement of giving opportunity of hearing prior to issuing of summons under the CGST Act.
At this stage, learned counsel for opposite party submits that impugned order dated 29.1.2025 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicant in compliance of the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS. Section 223 of BNSS is quoted hereinbelow:- "223. Examination of complainant.-(1) A Magistrate having juri iction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Markandey Rai, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Swatantra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi Ankur Garg .....Applicant(s) Union Of India And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212: Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. (2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless- (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received."
With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed. September 11, 2026 VMA (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.