The term “prosecution” means initiating legal proceedings against the offender. It is the process of creating formal charges before the institution of any proceedings. In the case of Siddharth vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021, the Supreme Court observed the arbitrary arrest by the authorities before filing the charge sheet. The court stated that the officer-in-chargecould not merely arrest an individual before filing the charge sheet. There has to be a reasonable suspicion in the officer’s mind that the individual can influence the witnesses and destroy the evidence necessary for the investigation.
The CBIC (Central Board of Indirect Taxes) has inspected the above judgement and issued various instructions and guidelines for launching prosecution or arrest under the CGST (Central Goods and Excise Tax) Act, 2017[1]. The current instruction is issued on 1st September 2022 as Instruction No.4/2022-23. The present article will note the critical points from the instructions and simply the guidelines issued in lieu of prosecution under GST
The prosecution has a negative effect on an individual’s mind; therefore, the standard of proof required in the prosecution shall be beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence collected by the officer in charge shall be adequate to prove an individual’s crime. The decision of prosecution under GST shall be taken giving due regard to the circumstances of the cases and such other factors prescribed below:
The officer in charge should refrain from filing prosecution merely:
Note: A demand is a notice served by the officer in case the tax is short or unpaid; a refund is wrongly made; input tax credit is wrongly claimed.
The prosecution under GST will generally be launched under section (1) of Section-132 of CGST Act, 2017, where the amount of tax evaded, ITC wrongly used and tax refund wrongly claimed is more than Five Hundred Lakh rupees. There are exemptions under the instructions for this amount:
The company /taxpayer will be an offender if they have suppressed the facts about the evasion or have fraudulently evaded the tax in the past two years and the benefits wrongly claimed by them exceeds Five Hundred Lakh rupees.
The prosecution against a person shall be filed only after taking permission from:
The prosecution against a person shall be filed only after taking permission from:
If the decision is to be taken by DGGI. In that case Additional or Joint commissioner, Additional or Joint Director involved in the case must forward the complaint and the relevant evidence with a request to file a prosecution complaint to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner/ or principal ADG/ ADG of DGGI.
Section 137(1) and (2) states that both the legal person and the natural person of the company are liable for prosecution under Section 132 of CGST Act,2017. The procedure for prosecution is summarised below:
If the punishment order by the court is less or inadequate as envisaged under the act, then an appeal can be made by the authority before the court. The process involved in filing the appeal is:
In cases booked by DGGI, the prosecution cell in the directorate shall examine the judgement and submit recommendations to the Pr. ADG/ADG. The Pr. ADG/ADG will decide whether to file the appeal or accept the judgement. Before filing an appeal, permission from DG or Pr. DG shall be obtained.
Where permission is granted for prosecution, but the complaint has not been filed due to the emergence of new facts or evidence, the Commissionerate shall bring it to thenotice of the sanctioning authority. After examining all the facts and evidence, the sanctioning authority believes that the request for permission is withdrawn, and then it shall recommend the Pr. Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner to withdraw the same. In the case of DGGI, the DG of DGGI can make an order to withdraw the request for prosecution.
If it is found in the adjudication proceedings that there is no contravention of the act, then Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner or Pr. ADG/ ADG shall take approval from higher authorities and apply for withdrawal through a public prosecutor in the court. The withdrawal becomes effective only after the order of the court.
The Pr.Commissioner/Commissioner is authorised to publish the name and other antecedents of the person convicted under the act.
According to Section 138 of CGST Act 2017, the Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner can compound the offence on payment of a prescribed fee. The person being prosecuted should be made aware of the provisions that will apply to him, and he should be given an offer to compound the offence.
Note: Compounding of offences is a process whereby a person committing a default will file an application with the compounding authority making a self-declaration that he has committed an offence and wants the same to be cordoned on payment of a certain fee.
The provisions will apply prospectively in all the cases where permission for prosecution under GST is granted after these instructions become effective. The procedure mentioned in these instructions shall be adhered to for filing any prosecution complaint in court. It shall apply in the cases where permission for prosecution is granted but no complaint has been filed in the court.
The DG of Directorate General of Performance Management and Pr. Chief Commissioners/Chief Commissioners have a responsibility to check whether the instructions are being followed and shall make a written note on the investigation report about the compliance of these instructions.Conviction of an accused mustdepend on the quality of the evidence. Hence, the senior officials shall personally manage all the investigations where the case involves money laundering and tax evasion.
After granting permission for prosecution under GST, the senior officials shall monitor the case at monthly intervals and make any recommendations to the investigating authority to ensure that the progress is satisfactory. The entry shall be made in the investigation module within 48 hours of granting permission for prosecution and will be updated from time to time.
The general guidelines that the investigating authority should follow are:
The decision of the Supreme Court in Siddharth vs the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021, has proved to be the protector of fundamental rights. The case had put the investigating authority under strong scrutiny. These instructions have increased the investigating agency’s liability and made them responsible for opting the wrong method of investigation. The instructions notified by the authority provide guidelines that must be followed before filing any prosecution under GST complaint in court. The above guidelines have forced the investigating agency to look for quality evidence before making any arrests or initiating any prosecution.
Read our Article: Offences and Penalties under GST in India
On January 16, 2025, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) released the list of Non-Banking Financial...
Over the decades, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has been a key pillar in the portf...
The Reserve Bank of India, on April 11, 2025, posted a Press Release No. 2025-2026/96 on their...
Hong Kong is widely recognized as a leading global business hub, known for its free-market econ...
With India’s growing economy, Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) have expanded significa...