HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12158 of 2026 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Krishan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aditya Krishnatreya, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the CGST, Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 8.10.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 18016 of 2025 (Union of India Vs. M/s Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. & 11 others) under Section 9 and 9AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, CGST, Division-I, Muzaffar Nagar as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence on the basis of inputs received that M/s Trikoot Iron and Steel Casting Limited (TISCL) is resorting to large scale of evasion on central excise duty. In pursuance thereof, office and premises of the aforesaid company was searched and loose sheets, hard disks, pen drives were seized. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants further submits that in the aforesaid search conducted, the invoices issued by the applicants have also been found in the records of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) and thereafter show cause notice was issued to TISCL as well as applicants for demand of duty and duty was adjudicated and confirmed by order dated 30.6.2021 against all applicants including TISCL. The applicants as well as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Krishnatreya, Mihir Ghosh Roy Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.S.G.I. (Senior Advocate), Alok Ranjan Mishra, G.A. M/S Bhageshwari Paper Ltd .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) TISCL filed separate appeals before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by common judgment dated 8.5.2025 allowed the appeals and set aside the demand duty and imposition of penalties on the applicants. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants further submits that to the best of knowledge of the applicants till date the order of the Tribunal has not been challenged in the higher forum. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that once the Adjudicating Authority assessment has already been set aside by way of an appeal then summoning the applicants under Section 9 and 9AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, CGST would not be tenable under law. 4. Learned counsel for the CGST submits that there is requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing prior to issuing of summons under the CGST Act. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that impugned order dated 8.10.2025 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the applicants in compliance of the provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS. Section 223 of BNSS is quoted hereinbelow:- "223. Examination of complainant.-(1) A Magistrate having jurisdiction while taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or (b) if the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 212: Provided also that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 212 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them. (2) A Magistrate shall not take cognizance on a complaint against a public servant for any offence alleged to have been committed in course of the discharge of his official functions or duties unless- (a) such public servant is given an opportunity to make assertions as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged; and NA528 No. 12158 of 2026 2 (b) a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to such public servant is received." As such, the matter may be remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants. 6. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent no. 2, the impugned order dated 8.10.2025 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 18016 of 2025 (Union of India Vs. M/s Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. & 11 others) under Sections 9 and 9AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, CGST, Division-I, Muzaffar Nagar is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. The applicants shall appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 25.5.2026. On the aforesaid date, after hearing both the parties, fresh order shall be passed on the complaint of the respondent no. 2. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed. May 6, 2026 VMA NA528 No. 12158 of 2026 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad