Second FIR challenge and constitutional attack on CGST prosecution safeguard failed where allegations arose from a distinct factual matrix.

Section 132(6) of the CGST Act was not declared unconstitutional because the challenge was unsupported by any pleaded constitutional infirmity, and the provision was treated as a safeguard since it bars prosecution without prior permission of the competent authority. The FIR was also not quashed as a second FIR, because the allegations of invoice fabrication, cheating, forgery and conspiracy arose from a distinct factual and legal matrix from earlier GST tax-evasion proceedings. The writ petition therefore failed, and the investigation was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be declared unconstitutional. (ii) Whether the writ petition warranted quashment of the FIR on the ground that it was a second FIR concerning the same transaction.

Issue (i): Whether Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was liable to be declared unconstitutional.

Analysis: The challenge to the provision was not supported by any pleaded basis showing misuse or constitutional infirmity. Section 132(6) operates as a safeguard by placing an embargo on prosecution without prior permission of the competent authority, and therefore functions as a protective provision rather than an oppressive one.

Conclusion: Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was not held unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition warranted quashment of the FIR on the ground that it was a second FIR concerning the same transaction.

Analysis: The allegations in the impugned FIR were found to relate to fabrication of invoices, cheating, forgery and conspiracy in the context of newspaper circulation and fake advertisements, whereas the earlier GST-related action concerned tax evasion proceedings under the CGST framework. The Court treated the present prosecution as arising from a distinct factual and legal setting and found no ground to interfere with the ongoing police investigation.

Conclusion: The FIR was not quashed and interference with the investigation was declined.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both the constitutional challenge and the request to quash the FIR, and the investigation was permitted to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional challenge must be supported by a pleaded basis of invalidity, and a later FIR will not be quashed where it concerns a distinct factual matrix and offences separate from earlier GST proceedings.

---