Article 226 restraint in CGST prosecutions: writ court will not short-circuit a pending criminal trial on disputed facts.

A writ court will not quash a CGST-based criminal prosecution under Article 226 where the complaint discloses disputed factual issues that require evidence at trial. The High Court held that it cannot conduct a fact-finding exercise or displace the criminal court's role when triable issues remain pending. Jurisdictional objections and challenges based on departmental instructions or circulars may still be raised before the trial court. A cited decision on revenue action under the CGST framework was found inapplicable because it did not involve a pending criminal prosecution. The writ petition was therefore not entertained and the prosecution was left to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash a criminal proceeding arising out of alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when the complaint raises disputed factual issues and the trial is already pending before the jurisdictional criminal court.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the criminal complaint and charge sheet as being without jurisdiction and contrary to departmental instructions and circulars. The complaint, however, formed the foundation of the prosecution and disclosed multiple factual disputes requiring evidence and adjudication in the criminal trial. The Court applied the settled principle that, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it should not undertake a fact-finding exercise or usurp the role of the criminal court where triable issues remain pending. The cited decision concerning challenge to revenue action under the CGST framework was held inapplicable because it did not concern a pending criminal prosecution.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere and held that the petitioner's grievances, including jurisdictional objections, could be urged before the criminal court during trial.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the criminal prosecution was left to proceed before the jurisdictional criminal court.

Ratio Decidendi: When a prosecution arising under fiscal law turns on disputed facts requiring trial, the writ court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to short-circuit the criminal process or conduct a fact-finding inquiry.

---