Bombay HC Refuses to Discharge CGST Superintendent Accused Of Demanding Rs. 1K Bribe For Processing GST Registration

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has dismissed a criminal revision application filed by a Central GST (CGST) Superintendent, Vijaykumar accused of demanding a Rs. 1,000 bribe for processing a GST registration, holding that there was sufficient prima facie material to send him to trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase upheld the order dated April 30, 2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, which had rejected the officer’s plea for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisionist, a Superintendent posted in CGST Range-I, Ahmednagar, was arrested in January 2023 by the Central Bureau of Investigation – Anti Corruption Bureau (CBI–ACB), Pune, after a businessman lodged a complaint alleging that the officer and a subordinate inspector had demanded money for approving his GST registration. According to the complaint filed on January 4, 2023, the informant had applied for a GST registration for his new business venture. During verification, he was summoned to the CGST office, where the inspector allegedly told him that the registration could not proceed because the submitted electricity bill was in the name of the informant’s father. The complainant alleged that the Superintendent then directed him to pay ₹1,000 to the inspector to resolve the objection and ensure the registration was processed. The CBI–ACB said that an independent verification exercise confirmed the demand. The verification report, reproduced in the High Court record, states that both officers had “in conspiracy with each other”sought the undue advantage of ₹1,000 for completing the verification process. The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated, and no demand was ever made by him. The trial court failed to properly consider the transcripts relied upon by the prosecution. The sanction for prosecution was invalid due to lack of application of mind. Electronic evidence was unsupported by a Section 65B Evidence Act certificate. There was no material indicating conspiracy between him and the subordinate inspector. It was submitted that the case did not meet the threshold for framing charges and was therefore fit for discharge. The Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that the complaint was promptly filed and was supported by a verification exercise. The Superintendent, being the superior officer, had directly instructed the complainant to hand over the bribe to his subordinate. The verification of mobile calls and interaction confirmed the demand. Questions regarding sanction and electronic evidence were matters for trial, not discharge. The CBI relied on several Supreme Court rulings that emphasize a low threshold for framing charges when prima facie material is available. The bench reiterated legal principles governing discharge applications under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC: Courts must only determine whether prima facie material or grave suspicion exists — not conduct a deep evaluation of evidence. After examining the complaint, verification report, and case papers, the Court held the complainant had specifically named both officers, alleging a coordinated demand. The subordinate inspector was acting on instructions of the Superintendent. Verification before FIR registration supported the allegation. Issues such as the validity of sanction and Section 65B compliance are to be examined during trial, not at the discharge stage. The Court concluded that there was sufficient material to proceed with the trial, rejecting the officer’s plea to terminate the case at the preliminary stage. The criminal revision application was dismissed, clearing the way for the trial to continue against the CGST Superintendent and the inspector for alleged offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (demanding undue advantage) and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy). Case Details Case Title: Vijaykumar Versus State of Maharashtra Case No.: Criminal Revision Application No. 205 Of 2025 Date: 20/11/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel Counsel For Respondent: S. A. Gaikwad, APP Click Here To Read Order Read More: Bombay High Court Disposes of PIL Seeking GST Recovery from Solapur Sugar Factory

Bombay HC Refuses to Discharge CGST Superintendent Accused Of Demanding Rs. 1K Bribe For Processing GST Registration

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 JULY, 2026

GSTAT Refers Challenge to Rule 96(10), Interest on IGST Refund Re-credit to Division Bench Over Substantial Questions of Law

Can Plastic Wrap Knit Fabric Qualify for Inverted Duty Refund? GSTAT Refers Classification Dispute to Division Bench

GSTAT Refers GST Refund Appeal Below Rs. 50 Lakh to Vice President for Further Directions

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 25 JULY, 2026

GSTAT Refers Challenge to Rule 96(10), Interest on IGST Refund Re-credit to Division Bench Over Substantial Questions of Law

Can Plastic Wrap Knit Fabric Qualify for Inverted Duty Refund? GSTAT Refers Classification Dispute to Division Bench

About us

Company

Categories