TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings deserved to be quashed on the ground that prior sanction of the Commissioner under the CGST Act had not been obtained and the matter was still at the investigation stage.
Analysis: The petition invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek quashing of the FIR registered for offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Penal Code. The Court noted that investigation was still in progress and no final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been presented. At that stage, the Court declined to assess the truthfulness of the allegations and found that the FIR disclosed prima facie offences. On the question of sanction, the Court read Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to mean that previous sanction is required before prosecution, not for lodging an FIR or commencing investigation. Prosecution was held to commence only when cognizance is taken by the competent court after the charge-sheet or final report is filed.
Conclusion: The FIR was not liable to be quashed on the ground of absence of prior sanction, and the petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Previous sanction under Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is a precondition to prosecution and cognizance, not to the registration of an FIR or the conduct of investigation.
TaxTMI 
