Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTCBI Books Four CGST Officials for Illegal Search and Attempt to Extort...

CBI Books Four CGST Officials for Illegal Search and Attempt to Extort Private Firm in Nagpur

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a significant crackdown on corruption within government ranks, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a case against four officials of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) department—including two Superintendents—for allegedly conducting an unauthorized search of a private company’s premises in Nagpur and attempting to extract undue advantage from the taxpayer.

The case was initiated following a complaint filed by K.C. Johny, Chief Commissioner of Central Indirect Taxes and Customs, Nagpur Zone. According to the complaint dated February 27, 2025, intelligence inputs received by the department indicated that four CGST officers from various formations within the Nagpur Zone had unlawfully entered and searched the premises of a private company located in Abhyankar Nagar on January 7.

A preliminary vigilance inquiry was launched, and on January 10, a team visited the firm’s premises to verify the report. During this visit, CCTV footage corroborating the presence of the four officers was retrieved. Additionally, the taxpayer submitted a written confirmation stating that the officials had indeed visited their office and carried out an unauthorized search on the aforementioned date.

The inquiry further revealed that the officials had no formal authorization or jurisdiction to conduct proceedings under the CGST Act at the location in question. None of the four officers were assigned duties that permitted such visits or enforcement actions at the taxpayer’s premises.

Following these findings, all four officers were suspended on January 10, 2025. Two inspectors who were still on probation were subsequently dismissed from service on February 4, 2025.

According to the complaint, evidence gathered during the internal probe indicates that the officers attempted to solicit undue advantage in exchange for concluding the unauthorized proceedings they had initiated.

Taking cognizance of the complaint and the evidence presented, the CBI has registered an FIR under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, including charges of criminal conspiracy and attempt to obtain an undue advantage by public servants.

This development underscores the government’s zero-tolerance policy towards corruption and misuse of power by public officials.

Read More: A Proud Moment: Advocate Rakesh Chitkara Joins JurisHour as Mentor and Editor-in-Chief

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...

More like this

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...