Mohit Singla & Anr. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors.

                          Mohit Singla And Another vs Direcotrate General Of Gst ... on 2 September, 2026







Mohit Singla And Another vs Direcotrate General Of Gst ... on 2



September, 2026



                                   CRM-M-40633-2026 (O&M)



















                                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA



                                                             AT CHANDIGARH







                                   137                                   CRM-M-40633-2026 (O&M)



                                                                         Date of Decision: 02.09.2026















                                   Mohit Singla and another                                                 ...Petitione







                                   Versus







                                   Direcotrate General of GST Intelligence and others ... Respondents















                                   CORAM :               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT















                                   Present:-             Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate with



                                                        Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate and



                                                        Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate



                                                        for the petitioners.







                                                        Mr. Naman Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with



                                                        Ms. Vaishali Jain, Advocate



                                                        for respondents No.1 and 2.







                                                        Mr. M.S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.















                                   N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)











CRM 36530 of 2026 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Reply on behalf of



respondents No. 1 and 2 is taken on record.







CRM-M-40633-2026







1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, with a prayer to



quash and set aside the orders dated 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-3), 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-4),



13.02.2026 (Annexure P-5), 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) and 08.07.2026 (Annexure P-7) passed by



the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, in Criminal Complaint No.



COMA-1181-2026 dated 03.01.2026, under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax







Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16657029/                                                           1



                          Mohit Singla And Another vs Direcotrate General Of Gst ... on 2 September, 2026







Act, 2017, punishable under clause







(i) of Section 132(1) thereof, filed by respondent, whereby, the trial Court has proceeded to record



the pre-charge evidence.







2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the present



case no formal order of summoning has been passed by the trial Court, and without passing a



summoning order, trial Court could not have proceeded to record the pre-charge evidence in the



complaint case. He further submits that even before passing a summoning order, the trial Court was



obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 223 of BNSS. Learned counsel for the



petitioners has also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh



v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026, SCC Online 903, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held



as follows:-







         "26. Section 223 of the BNSS deals with the examination of a complainant. The first



         proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS prohibits the Magistrate from taking



         cognizance of an offence, unless the accused is given an opportunity of being heard.







         27. Though Chapter XVI of the BNSS lays down the procedural law dealing with



         complaints made to a Magistrate, we hold that the aforesaid proviso is substantive in



         nature, as it does not merely regulate the manner in which the proceedings are to be



         conducted, rather it confers a right upon the accused to be heard before taking



         cognizance which forms a part of the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined



         under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. We further hold that the word



         "shall" occurring in the said proviso has to be construed to be mandatory in nature,



         which enures to the benefit of an accused. Resultantly, cognizance of an offence taken



         by a Court without due compliance of the aforestated proviso would be void ab initio.







         34.A mere ministerial act cannot be termed as an "inquiry" under Section 2(1)(k) of



         the BNSS. Taking cognizance is nothing but an application of judicial mind. So long



         as the application of the judicial mind is not exercised, an inquiry cannot commence.



         It is the judicial notice of an offence by the Court which is relevant. While doing so, it



         is presumed that the Court would take note of the complaint along with the materials



         placed before it.







         36. As rightly held by this Court in Hardeep Singh (supra), even the stage of ensuring



         compliance with Sections 207 to 209 of the CrPC, 1973 cannot be termed as an



         inquiry because there is no application of judicial mind. In the facts of the instant



         case, the direction issued by the Special Court, vide order dated 24.06.2024, to



         number the complaint and, thereafter, post the matter on a future date for hearing on



         cognizance would certainly not come within the purview of an "inquiry" under



         Section 2(1)(k) of the BNSS. In such view of the matter, the aforestated contention



         raised by the learned ASG falls to the ground.















Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16657029/                                                       2



                          Mohit Singla And Another vs Direcotrate General Of Gst ... on 2 September, 2026







         37.As already discussed, though the complaint under the PMLA was filed earlier, the



         cognizance was only taken subsequently, on 02.07.2024, by which time the BNSS had



         come into force. Admittedly, the appellant has not been heard at the time of taking



         cognizance. The mandate of a legislation which ensures the right of an accused to a



         fair trial, whose liberty is at stake, cannot be dispensed with. Thus, the contention of



         the learned ASG that prejudice caused due to non-hearing at the stage of cognizance



         will have to be shown by the accused cannot be accepted, as it is not a mere



         irregularity that would attract either Section 506 or 511 of the BNSS, but is an



         illegality that would vitiate the very proceedings.







         38. Based on the above discussion, the views expressed by the High Court are,



         therefore, liable to be set aside.







We do find that the allegations against the appellant are quite serious. However, non-compliance



with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS vitiates the very order taking cognizance, and the



same cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. In fact, the appellant has, at the earliest point in



time, filed the application for recall of the order taking cognizance by placing reliance upon the said



proviso. Had the Special Court allowed it, the trial would have proceeded further. Suffice it to state



that the appellant cannot be faulted for any delay that has occasioned.."







3. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in



the matter of Kushal Kumar Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1221,



decided on 09.05.2025 and Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC Online SC 449.







4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 does not dispute the



factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no formal



cognizance order has been passed by the trial Court in the present case. Learned counsel further



submits that in the present case serious allegations have been leveled against both the petitioners.



However, he admits that the procedure prescribed by BNSS has not been followed by the trial Court.







5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.







6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that in the



present case no formal order has been passed by the trial Court for summoning the petitioners as an



accused, and without passing such order, the trial Court has wrongly proceeded to record the



pre-charge evidence in the present case. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 13.02.2026,



Annexure P5, 21 April 2026, Annexure P6, and 8th July 2026, Annexure P7, passed by the Court of



Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, are ordered to be set aside.







7. The trial Court is expected to follow the mandate of the law as mentioned under Section 223 of



BNSS and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above judgments. The parties through



their counsel may appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed, i.e. 12th October 2026.







8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.







Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16657029/                                                       3



                          Mohit Singla And Another vs Direcotrate General Of Gst ... on 2 September, 2026



















                                   02.09.2026                                     (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)



                                   amit rana                                                 JUDGE







                                                        Whether reasoned/speaking :                         Yes/No



                                                        Whether reportable          :                       Yes/No



















Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/16657029/                                                                4