Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the FIR was not entirely vitiated at this premature stage because it included alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in addition to alleged violations of the WBSGST Act, 2017. The Court observed that the alleged offences were not confined to the SGST Act but also traversed into the domain of offences under various sections of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, the procedural rigours contemplated solely within the SGST Act were not applicable to the FIR in its entirety. The Court found no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's order refusing to grant ad interim protection. The Court clarified that the merits of the contentions were not conclusively decided and it would be open for the parties to agitate all points before the Writ Court and other forums. The appeal was dismissed on contest, affirming the impugned order.

Facts

The appellant, Deepak Kumar Daiya, challenged an order of the learned Single Judge who refused to grant a stay or quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. The FIR was lodged at the behest of the State of West Bengal for alleged violations of Sections 132/133 of the West Bengal Goods and Service Act, 2017 (WBSGST Act). The appellant argued that prior sanction from the Commissioner was required for FIR registration under Section 132(6) of the WBSGST Act, and that prosecution typically arises only when fraudulently obtained refunds exceed Rs. 500 lakhs, as per a notification. The State contended that the FIR also included alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR is vitiated for non-compliance with Section 132(6) of the WBSGST Act, 2017, and the relevant notification regarding monetary limits for prosecution, given that the alleged offences are stated to be under the WBSGST Act. Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that Section 132(6) of the WBSGST Act mandates prior sanction from the Commissioner before registering an FIR for offences under the Act. - Reliance was placed on a notification dated September 1, 2022, which stipulates that prosecution normally does not arise unless the monetary limit of fraudulently obtained refund exceeds Rs. 500 lakhs. - The petitioner cited *Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India* to emphasize that non-cognizable offences are bailable, and only specific categories of offences exceeding Rs. 500 lakhs are non-bailable and cognizable. - A Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in *Deepak Singhal v. Union of India* was also cited, asserting that GST authorities cannot bypass the prescribed procedure for launching prosecution under the GST Act by solely invoking IPC provisions without Commissioner's sanction. Revenue's Arguments: - The State contended that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the premise that the FIR included alleged offences not only under the SGST Act, 2017, but also under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.