TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Jharkhand HC Invalidates Cognizance Order in Complaint Case No.2144/2018 Due to Lack of Proper Procedures Under CGST Act.</h1> <h3>Dinesh Vyas Versus The Union of India through GST Council, The Senior Intelligence Officer, Jamshedpur</h3> The Jharkhand HC set aside the order of cognizance dated 24.07.2018 in Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, as it was taken without a formal complaint or ... Seeking to set aside the order taking cognizance arising out of the application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. being treated as Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur - HELD THAT:- It appears that in absence of any complaint and without any sanction, the learned Court has taken cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. There are procedure prescribed in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The cognizance was taken on 24.07.2018 and the sanction has been made on 26.09.2023 as discussed in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 - the said order taking cognizance is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 24.07.2018 arising out of the application under Section 167 Cr.P.C. being treated as Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, pending in the Court of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur is set aside. Petition allowed. In the case before the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, the petitioner sought to set aside the order of cognizance dated 24.07.2018, related to Complaint Case No.2144 of 2018, under Section 167 Cr.P.C., pending in the Special Court for Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, argued that the complaint was not filed under the relevant sections of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and that Section 134 of the Act requires cognizance of offences only after sanction by the concerned authority. He contended that the court took cognizance without a formal complaint or sanction.The respondent's counsel, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, acknowledged that a sanction was granted on 26.09.2023, as disclosed in a counter affidavit, indicating compliance with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act procedures.The court found that the cognizance taken on 24.07.2018 was not in accordance with the law due to the absence of a complaint and sanction at that time. Consequently, the order taking cognizance was set aside, and the petition was allowed. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
