High Court of Allahabad11 August 2026

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

For assessee

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS NO. 30925 OF 2026

The ruling in brief

Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant

Provisions considered

Section 132, read with sections 73, 74 and 134, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 4, read with section 5, of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 345(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Related rulings

Allahabad High Court11 Aug 2026

For assessee

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Where applicant accused of availing fraudulent input tax credit on invoices of non-existent firms was in custody after investigation completion, no evidence showed likelihood of tampering, intimidation or evasion, assessment was not initiated, maximum punishment was five years, and trial was unlikely soon, bail was justified considering presumption of innocence, speedy trial, and bail as rule

Chhattisgarh High Court7 Aug 2026

For revenue

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Where petitioner, a private businessman, filed PIL seeking directions for investigation and recovery in alleged tax evasion by specific parties based on supplied documents and previous dismissal for want of locus and same was to be dismissed as petitioner failed to disclose any element of genuine public interest; Security amount deposited by petitioner was to be forfeited

CGST S.132

Allahabad High Court3 Aug 2026

For assessee

Samyak Jain v. Union of India

Where applicant was accused of operating multiple shell firms to pass fraudulent ITC with large financial magnitude and was in custody with no prior criminal antecedents, with no assessment proceedings pending and maximum sentence of five years, bail was granted citing fair procedure, presumption of innocence, and protracted trial likelihood

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Kapil Chugh v. State of U.P

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Javed Akhtar v. Union of India

Santosh Agrawal (Goyal) v. Union of India

Samyak Jain v. Union of India