Aman Jindal vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
Held
The Court held that the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, was liable to be set aside. The reasoning was based on the applicant's submission that no opportunity of hearing was granted, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the DGGI's submission for a remand. The ratio decidendi is that a summoning order passed without affording the accused an opportunity of hearing, where such opportunity is mandated by law or principles of natural justice, is unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned cognizance and summoning order and remanded the matter back to the concerned court for a fresh decision after hearing the accused persons in accordance with law. Parties were directed to appear before the court on 27th October, 2026.
Facts
The applicant, Tushal Raheja, sought to quash criminal proceedings and a summoning order in Criminal Complaint No. 158553 of 2025, arising from Crime No. DGGI/INV(GST) 1498/2025. The alleged offenses were under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the GST Act, 2017. The applicant contended that the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, passed the cognizance/summoning order dated 21.11.2025 without granting an opportunity of hearing, citing the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. The DGGI department, represented by its counsel, suggested remanding the matter for a fresh decision at the cognizance stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.11.2025, passed by the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Complaint No. 158553 of 2025, is liable to be set aside/quashed on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, as contemplated under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: Argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the court concerned in the complaint case, contrary to the proviso of Section 223(1) BNSS. Revenue/State (DGGI): Submitted that the matter may be remanded back for decision afresh at the stage of cognizance.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(i), Section 223(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3957 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for DGGI department and learned AGA for the State.
The present application has been filed for setting-aside/quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.158553 of 2025 (Union of India Vs. Tushal Raheja & others), arising out of Crime No. DGGI/INV(GST) 1498/2025 under Sections 132 (1)(b), 132 (1)(i) of GST ACT 2017, P.S. DGGI, KRU, Fazalganj, District Kanpur Nagar, along with impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 21.11.2025 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar (only in respect of the present applicant).
It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that no opportunity of hearing was granted by the court concerned in complaint case under proviso of Section 223 (1) BNSS.
Learned counsel for DGGI submits that the matter may be remanded back for decision afresh at the stage of cognizance.
In view of aforesaid, the cognizance and summoning order dated 21.
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.