The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside orders recording pre-charge evidence in a criminal complaint under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, holding that the trial court had proceeded without passing a formal summoning order as mandated by Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Justice N.S. Shekhawat, in CRM-M-40633-2026 (Mohit Singla vs. DGGI, decided 02.09.2026), directed the trial court to follow the mandate of BNSS and the Supreme Court's recent judgments on the accused's right to be heard before cognizance.
The petitioners were facing a criminal complaint filed by the DGGI under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act. The trial court — the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana — had proceeded to record pre-charge evidence without passing any formal order summoning the petitioners as accused. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Parvinder Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 SCC Online 903), which held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of BNSS is "substantive in nature" — it confers upon the accused a right to be heard before cognizance is taken, forming part of the right to fair trial under Article 21. Cognizance taken without this compliance is "void ab initio."
Counsel for the DGGI did not dispute that no formal cognizance order had been passed and admitted that the procedure prescribed by BNSS had not been followed. The Court set aside the impugned orders directing recording of pre-charge evidence and directed the trial court to follow the mandate of Section 223 of BNSS and the Supreme Court's rulings. This decision is significant for GST criminal prosecutions under Section 132, as it establishes that the procedural safeguards of BNSS — including the accused's right to be heard before cognizance — apply with full force to GST offences.
• 2026-juristway.com-1268-HC(Punjab & Haryana)-GST | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | CRM-M-40633-2026 | 02.09.2026