GST special procedure prevails over general criminal process; adjudication and prosecution may proceed simultaneously on prima facie offence.

GST's special scheme for inspection, search, seizure, arrest, prosecution, cognizance and compounding prevails over the general criminal procedure to the extent of inconsistency, so the petitioners could not insist on full application of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The adjudicatory and penal tracks under GST were treated as distinct and capable of running simultaneously; on the recorded material alleging fake invoices, wrongful input tax credit, summons statements and voluntary reversal, a prima facie offence was found and no writ interference was warranted. The challenge therefore failed and the departmental action was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under the GST law, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to registration of crime, investigation, search and seizure, and cognizance had to be followed in the manner urged by the petitioners. (ii) Whether adjudication under the GST law and prosecution for offences under the GST law could proceed simultaneously and whether the material disclosed a prima facie case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under the GST law, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to registration of crime, investigation, search and seizure, and cognizance had to be followed in the manner urged by the petitioners.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the GST enactment contains special provisions governing inspection, search and seizure, arrest, prosecution, cognizance, and compounding. Those provisions operate with their own force and, where specifically provided, modify the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The search and seizure provision expressly incorporates the Code only subject to the stated modification, and the arrest and cognizance provisions show that prosecution under the GST law is regulated by the special statute. The petitioners' insistence on complete application of the general criminal procedure was therefore inconsistent with the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected. The GST law was held to be a special enactment and the relevant special procedure was held applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether adjudication under the GST law and prosecution for offences under the GST law could proceed simultaneously and whether the material disclosed a prima facie case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order treated the adjudicatory and penal chapters of the GST law as distinct, and held that both proceedings may proceed simultaneously. On the facts, the record showed alleged fake invoices, wrongful availment of input tax credit, statements recorded under summons, and a voluntary reversal/deposit of the amount. The statutory presumptions regarding culpable mental state and the use of statements recorded under summons reinforced the existence of a prima facie case. In these circumstances, no ground was found for injunctive or writ interference against the departmental action.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to relief. Simultaneous adjudication and prosecution was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the GST action failed, the departmental proceedings were allowed to continue, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute creates its own scheme for inspection, arrest, adjudication, prosecution, cognizance, and compounding, the special procedure prevails over the general criminal procedure to the extent of inconsistency, and adjudication and prosecution under that statute may proceed simultaneously if the facts disclose a prima facie offence.

---