GST OFFENCES DO NOT SHIELD CHEATING AND FORGERY FROM POLICE INVESTIGATION

GST Allegations May Also Involve Cheating and Forgery

A GST case may involve more than a dispute about tax payment or eligibility for input tax credit. It may also contain allegations that someone used a false identity, prepared forged documents or dishonestly misrepresented facts. Such conduct may require examination under both GST law and the general criminal law. The involvement of GST does not automatically make the entire matter exclusively investigable by GST officers. Where distinct cheating or forgery offences are alleged, the police may also have authority to investigate.

For example, a person may allegedly use fabricated documents to obtain GST registration and then issue invoices without supplying goods. GST officers may examine the invoices, credit claims and tax consequences. The police may investigate the alleged preparation and use of forged documents or other conduct satisfying the requirements of a separate criminal offence. However, an incorrect return or a disputed ITC claim does not automatically amount to cheating or forgery. The allegations must disclose the ingredients of those offences, and the investigation must establish the supporting evidence.

This distinction arose in Charan Kawal Singh Gujral Versus State of Maharashtra, Pramod Ganpatrao Pinge - 2026 (10) TMI 1061 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT. The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, comprising Hon'ble Ms Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke and Hon'ble Mr Justice Raj D. Wakode, decided Criminal Writ Petition No.402/2026. The petitioner argued that the police lacked authority to investigate an FIR containing both GST and distinct penal offences. The court rejected that challenge, allowing the investigation to continue. The decision concerned the authority to investigate, not the petitioner's guilt or whether the alleged fraud had been proved.

The Investigation Began With Allegations of False Documents and Fake Invoices

FIR No. 833/2025 dated 21.12.2025 was registered following a State Tax Officer's complaint. The complaint alleged that fabricated documents had been submitted to obtain GST registration and that earlier applications using the same PAN also contained false documents. It further alleged that the registrations were used to generate invoices without actual business transactions, enabling fraudulent claims of input tax credit. The alleged loss to the Government was stated to be Rs.25 lakh.

The FIR included offences under Section 132(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, together with Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thus, the investigation concerned not only GST violations but also allegations of cheating, forgery and use of forged documents. During the investigation, the police examined transactions involving substantial amounts and suppliers allegedly not found at their declared business addresses. These circumstances called for examination of the records; they did not, by themselves, establish that every transaction was fictitious or every person involved was guilty.

The amounts must also be kept separate. The value of purchases, sales or invoices is not the same as the amount of alleged tax loss. For example, invoices worth several crores of rupees do not necessarily mean that the Government lost that entire amount. The alleged tax or ITC loss requires its own calculation and supporting evidence. Here, the complaint stated a loss of Rs. 25 lakh, while the larger transaction figures formed part of the investigation's background. Neither should be presented as a final finding of criminal liability

The Petitioner Was Asked to Produce Records but Was Not Named as an Accused

The petitioner carried on automobile-parts trading through businesses described in the judgment as Guru Nanak Motors and Eshna Enterprises. He was not named as an accused in the FIR. However, the investigation revealed transactions between Eshna Enterprises and suppliers whose activities were under examination. The police therefore sought his business records to understand and verify those dealings. A request for records did not, by itself, establish his involvement in any offence.

A notice dated 19.01.2026 required him to produce GST invoices, purchase and sale documents, GST returns and other related records for 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2025. Such records could help establish what was purchased or sold, the parties involved and how the transactions were reported. Their production and examination formed part of the investigation; they were not a final determination that the transactions were false.

The petitioner challenged the police's legal authority to undertake the investigation. He sought a declaration that the action lacked statutory authority and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The central question, therefore, was whether the police could investigate the combined allegations, not whether his purchases and sales were genuine or fictitious. The outcome of that jurisdictional challenge did not finally decide his criminal liability.

The Petitioner Argued That Only Authorised GST Officers Could Investigate

The petitioner's main argument was that GST law assigns particular powers to designated officers, subject to statutory conditions. He relied on Section 67 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governing inspection, search and seizure, and Section 69 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, governing arrest. According to him, this special framework meant that the police could not independently investigate GST offences merely because a complaint had been lodged.

He also relied on Sections 132(6) and 134 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning sanction for prosecution and the Court's taking cognizance of offences. He questioned whether the complainant was a duly empowered proper officer and whether police assistance could validly be sought, referring to Rule 150 of the CGST Rules, 2017. These were the petitioner's objections; they were not findings that the complainant lacked authority or that the investigation was unlawful. He argued that the safeguards built into GST law could not be bypassed through police proceedings.

In support, he cited Deepak Singhal Versus Union of India And Others - 2024 (9) TMI 233 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT and Daulat Samirmal Mehta Versus Union of India through the Secretary and others - 2021 (2) TMI 762 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT. The judgment recorded this reliance but did not separately analyse their legal principles in detail. Instead, it focused on the fact that the FIR also alleged distinct cheating and forgery offences. Recognising special powers under GST law did not, by itself, establish that the police were barred from investigating those separate criminal allegations

Special GST Provisions Do Not Automatically Rule Out Ordinary Criminal Procedure

The judgment examined Section 4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which explains how ordinary criminal procedure applies to offences created by other laws. The general position is that those offences may also be investigated, examined and tried under the ordinary procedural framework. However, where the special law prescribes a different procedure or imposes a particular restriction, that requirement must be followed. A special enactment does not automatically exclude ordinary criminal procedure in its entirety.

The judgment referred to Mirza Iqbal Hussain Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh - 1982 (11) TMI 181 - Supreme Court to explain this relationship. The principle is that ordinary criminal procedure continues to apply unless the special enactment contains a specific or contrary provision. For example, a special law may require sanction before prosecution or prescribe conditions for exercising a particular power. Those requirements cannot be ignored merely because ordinary criminal procedure is otherwise applicable. The two frameworks must be read together, with effect given to the special requirements.

The question was therefore not simply whether GST law gives investigation powers to GST officers. It was whether that statutory framework prevented the police from investigating the separate cheating and forgery allegations contained in the FIR. The existence of GST-specific powers did not, by itself, establish such a prohibition. A claim that police investigation is barred must rest on the applicable statutory restriction, not merely on the fact that the alleged transactions also involve GST.

GST Involvement Does Not Prevent Investigation of Cheating and Forgery

In State of West Bengal Versus Narayan K. Patodia - 2000 (4) TMI 777 - Supreme Court, the allegations involved both sales-tax offences and offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the special tax-investigation machinery necessarily prevented the regular police from investigating the accompanying criminal offences. G.S. Oils Ltd. through its M.D. Shri Manoj Kumar Shrigovind Agrawal and Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through PSO Wani, Dist. Yavatmal and Others And (Umeshkumar Narayanlal Agrawal Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO Wani - 2012 (10) TMI 1274 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed a similar approach. Giving investigation powers to tax officers does not automatically remove the police's authority to investigate separate penal offences arising from the same dealings.

For example, suppose a person allegedly prepares forged documents to obtain GST registration and then issues invoices without supplying goods. The tax authorities may examine the resulting ITC claims and tax consequences. The police may investigate the alleged forgery, dishonest use of documents, and cheating where the elements of those offences are met. The fact that the alleged scheme sought a GST benefit does not protect the separate criminal acts from investigation. The tax and criminal inquiries may concern connected facts, but they examine different legal requirements.

In this case, the FIR included Sections 318(4), 336(3) and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating, forgery for cheating and use of forged documents. These distinct allegations supported continuation of the police investigation. However, an incorrect return, an accounting error or a disputed ITC claim does not automatically establish cheating or forgery. The facts and ingredients of each alleged offence still require examination and proof. The decision permitted that investigation; it did not treat every GST irregularity as a general criminal offence

Helping GST Officers Does Not Give the Police All Their Powers

Section 72 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires police officers and certain other officers to assist proper officers in implementing GST law. Police involvement is therefore not completely excluded from GST proceedings. For example, police may help maintain security and prevent obstruction while authorised GST officers carry out lawful action. Such assistance supports the GST officers' work; it does not automatically transfer their statutory responsibilities to the police.

A duty to assist is different from authority to exercise a particular power. Section 72 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not, by itself, make every police officer a GST proper officer or authorise every inspection, search, seizure or arrest. If an action is taken under GST law, the required authority and conditions must be satisfied. If the police act under their separate criminal-law powers, that action must meet the requirements of that legal framework. The power being exercised must have its own lawful basis.

The decision relied on these provisions together, not on police assistance alone. The FIR alleged distinct cheating and forgery offences, Supreme Court precedents supported police investigation of such offences, and Section 72 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognised police assistance. The conclusion was that this investigation could continue-not that the police had acquired unrestricted powers under GST law. The assistance provision cannot be treated as permission to bypass the safeguards governing specific investigative actions.

The Same Facts May Attract Two Laws Without Permitting Double Punishment

The judgment also relied on The State Of Maharashtra Versus Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan & Ors. - 2018 (9) TMI 1803 - Supreme Court. That decision explained that the same facts may constitute offences under different enactments. The existence of liability under a special law does not automatically displace a separate offence under the general penal law.

Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 supplies the relevant distinction. Proceedings under more than one enactment are not automatically barred, but a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence. The same transaction and the same offence are not interchangeable expressions. A transaction may contain several criminal acts, each requiring examination of its own ingredients.

For example, alleged fictitious invoicing may raise GST questions, while preparing or knowingly using forged documents may raise separate penal questions. Their connection does not itself prohibit proceedings under both laws. Equally, adding several statutory labels cannot substitute for proving the offences or avoiding the prohibition against double punishment.

An FIR Begins the Inquiry Rather Than Completing the Case

The petitioner also sought quashing of the investigation. The judgment emphasised that an FIR need not contain the entire prosecution case. It sets the investigation in motion; documents, statements and other evidence may emerge later. Here, the petitioner was not named as an accused, and evidence was still being collected.

A dispute about the appropriate investigating agency also did not necessarily require quashing the FIR itself. The reasoning in Narayan K. Patodia distinguished the question of who should investigate from whether the allegations should be extinguished altogether. An agency-related objection and a ground for ending the criminal proceedings are not automatically the same.

The central objection-that GST involvement wholly barred police investigation-was unsustainable on this record. This did not mean that every investigative act was beyond challenge. It meant that the ground advanced did not justify stopping the combined investigation.

Dismissal Allowed Investigation to Continue but Did Not Establish Guilt

The Criminal Writ Petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of. The formal Rule issued in the writ proceedings was discharged. In simple terms, the petition and the notice issued for its consideration came to an end; no statutory rule was cancelled or struck down.

The dismissal rejected the challenge to the police's authority to investigate. It did not declare the petitioner guilty. His role, the genuineness of the transactions, and the alleged use of false documents remained matters to be established through evidence and the lawful criminal process.

Nor should the judgment be read as individually approving every arrest, notice, or other investigative step mentioned in the record. Its central determination concerned the objection to the police's investigation of the mixed allegations. Applicable safeguards governing particular actions remained relevant.

The Earlier Procedural References Require a Present-Day Qualification

The judgment discusses the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and relies on precedents concerning the Indian Penal Code, although the FIR invokes the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. For present-day application, Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the corresponding framework, subject to the applicable repeal and savings provisions. The correspondence is also identified in official comparative material.

This is an explanatory qualification, not a separate finding made in the judgment about the procedural transition. The correct procedural enactment and applicable special-law requirements must be identified for each proceeding. The earlier precedents remain relevant to the principle that a special tax law does not automatically displace distinct general criminal offences.

Examine the Alleged Offence and the Particular Power Being Exercised

The practical lesson is to separate three questions: what offence is alleged, which authority may investigate it, and what legal power supports the particular investigative action? Merely describing a matter as "GST fraud" answers none of these questions completely. Tax defaults, forgery, cheating, police assistance and GST-specific coercive powers each require their own legal examination.

For businesses, genuine transaction records may help answer an investigation, but requesting those records does not itself establish guilt. For investigating authorities, the rejection of a blanket jurisdictional objection does not remove the responsibility to collect evidence and comply with procedural safeguards.

GST law cannot shield an investigation into distinct cheating and forgery offences. Equally, an allegation of fraud cannot replace the legal authority and evidence required at each stage.

***