The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with an order declining interim protection against an FIR involving alleged GST violations and offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), holding that alleged non-compliance with safeguards under the State GST law could not invalidate the entire FIR at that preliminary stage.

The Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee clarified that it had not conclusively decided the merits of the parties’ contentions. It preserved the appellant’s opportunity to challenge the inclusion of GST offences without the requisite sanction or compliance with the applicable statutory requirements before the appropriate forum.

Buy Now: All 200+ GSTAT Judgements Till November 2026 | Comprehensive E-Magazine

The appeal arose from an order whereby the Single Judge declined to grant interim protection against the FIR.

The criminal proceedings concerned alleged violations of Sections 132 and 133 of the West Bengal GST legislation, alongside offences under the BNS.

Challenging the Single Judge’s refusal to intervene, the appellant argued that the authorities had failed to comply with safeguards governing prosecution under the GST legislation.

The appellant’s counsel contended that Section 132(6) required the Commissioner’s prior sanction before registration of an FIR for offences under the GST legislation.

Counsel also relied on an instrument dated September 1, 2022, described in the order as a notification having statutory force. According to the appellant, prosecution would not normally arise unless the amount of fraudulently obtained refund exceeded ₹500 lakh, equivalent to ₹5 crore.

These were arguments advanced by the appellant. The Division Bench did not conclusively determine whether sanction was required before FIR registration or finally decide the scope and application of the monetary threshold.

The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others, reported at (2025) 6 SCC 545, in support of submissions concerning the classification of GST offences as cognizable or non-cognizable and bailable or non-bailable.

Counsel further cited Deepak Singhal v. Union of India and Others, reported at 2024 Supreme (MP) 423.

As recorded in the order, the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision was relied upon to argue that GST is governed by a special legislative framework and that authorities cannot bypass its prosecution procedure by invoking general penal provisions without complying with the sanction requirement under Section 132(6).

The Division Bench recorded these submissions but left their application to the disputed GST charges open for consideration before the appropriate forum.

Opposing the appeal, the State submitted that the Single Judge had proceeded on the basis that the FIR contained allegations under both the State GST legislation and several provisions of the BNS.

After examining the impugned order and the materials before it, the Division Bench found that the allegations were not confined to GST violations.

The FIR also invoked Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

The presence of these additional allegations was central to the Court’s decision to decline interference at the interim stage.

The Bench reasoned that the framework and restrictions contemplated under the State GST legislation could not operate to invalidate the FIR in its entirety when it also contained allegations under the BNS.

Since the FIR incorporated BNS provisions, the Court held that it could not be treated as wholly vitiated at that premature stage merely because of alleged non-compliance with the 2017 GST legislation.

Accordingly, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s refusal to grant ad interim protection.

The decision does not finally establish that the GST charges were validly included, that the Commissioner’s sanction was unnecessary, or that any alleged offence had been proved.

The Court observed that, if the FIR resulted in a trial, the appellant would remain entitled to challenge the inclusion of the relevant GST provisions during the trial or at an appropriate subsequent stage under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Such a challenge could concern the alleged absence of the Commissioner’s prior permission and non-compliance with the relevant notification and statutory provisions.

The Bench also expressly stated that the merits of the parties’ contentions had not been conclusively decided. All points raised in the appeal could therefore be pursued on their own merits before the Writ Court and other forums.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: PMLA Vehicle Release Requires Fresh Valuation For FDR Security: Orissa High Court