Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040007052026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./119/2026 The Union of India represented by Shri Malay Majumder, Assistant Commissioner, CGST and CX Itanagar, (under Guwahati CGST, CX and Customs Zone), Mowb II, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh 791111 VERSUS Biraj Poddar Son of Shri Bonamali Poddar, resident of Adisapta Gram Bazaar, (Landmark Binaka Shoe House) Near Adisapta Gram High School, Mogra, Hoogly 712148 Advocate for the Petitioner : Meenakshi Jerang, Tania Kipa,R Taku,S C keyal Advocate for the Respondent : Shahina Nazneen, 1 P Roy,1 Z Alam,R Islam BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. Kaushik Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ziaul Alam, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. By way of filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, in C.R. Case No. 11/2026, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 206 and 208 of the Page No.# 2/4 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came to be dismissed. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that during the course of investigation into alleged availment and passing of ineligible input tax credit, summons were issued to the respondent under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. According to the petitioner, despite repeated summons, the respondent failed to appear before the concerned authority. Therefore, the petitioner filed the complaint before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class alleging commission of offences under Sections 206 and 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, however, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the record did not contain any material or proof demonstrating that the summons had been duly served upon or received by the respondent and, consequently, no prima facie case was made out against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had issued three summons to the respondent requiring his appearance on the dates specified therein. However, in the absence of proof of service of the summons on the respondent, learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioner/or the concerned Officer may be permitted to issue fresh summons to the respondent and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the respondent had not been duly served with the summons referred to in the complaint and, therefore, the dismissal of the complaint by the learned Court below does not call for any interference. Page No.# 3/4 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that except for the track record, the summons relied upon by the petitioner in support of the complaint, are not accompanied by any material demonstrating that due service was caused upon the respondent and acknowledged. In the absence of proof of service, the allegation that the respondent had deliberately or willfully disobeyed the summons or evaded appearance before the concerned authority cannot be sustained merely on the basis of issuance of the summons. The learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in declining to take cognizance of the alleged offences on the materials which was before it. 9. In view of the above, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, in C.R. Case No. 11/2026. 10. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition stands disposed of. 11. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the aforesaid complaint shall not preclude the petitioner/concerned authority from issuing fresh summons to the respondent under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if otherwise permissible in law. The concerned authority is also at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. Any further, or such fresh summons, shall be duly served in accordance with the applicable Page No.# 4/4 procedure and the proof of such service shall be duly maintained on record. 12. It is further clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the ongoing investigation or on the existence of any liability or offence on the part of the respondent. In the event of any subsequent non- compliance with duly served summons, the petitioner/concerned authority shall be at liberty to take such further action as may be permissible in law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant