In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court to challenge a First Information Report (FIR) dated 04-10-2025 registered for commission of offences under Section 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with a cognizance order dated 14-05-2026 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, as well as a chargesheet on the Magistrate’s file, a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena quashed all three to the extent that they were related to the petitioner.
The petitioner was an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of U.P. since 20-12-2021, specializing in indirect taxes, direct taxes and corporate law. He was also an Advocate on Record before the Court. The proprietor of a firm approached him and engaged him as his advocate to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against orders dated 16-04-2025 by the Deputy Commissioner who assessed a sum of Rs. 81,46,291/- as tax, besides interest and penalty for the financial year 2021-22, Rs. 4,90,78,118/- as tax, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2022-23, and Rs. 4,80,16,615 towards tax, interest, and penalty for the financial year 2023-24 against his firm.
As per his client’s instructions, the petitioner filed two statutory appeals on 15-08-2025 before the Appellate Authority-3. Thereafter, the client was served dasti with an intimation wherein it was said that the pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from his Electronic Credit Ledger, utilizing Input Tax Credit for filing a statutory appeal, could not be accepted as a statutory pre-deposit for the purpose, and was asked to clarify on the question of maintainability.
The petitioner expressed his inability to attend the hearing regarding the question of maintainability due to an urgent meeting in Ghaziabad, and the client failed to arrange an adjournment, leading the Appellate Authority to dismiss the statutory appeal on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner of GST, instead of proceeding to recover the assessed tax amount from the client, lodged the impugned FIR not only against the client but also against the petitioner for making a pre-deposit of 10% of the dispute tax out of the Electronic Credit Ledger by utilizing Input Tax Credit.
The FIR also alleged that the client committed GST evasion in conspiracy with the petitioner, causing financial loss to the State Exchequer. The petitioner was aggrieved with this part of the FIR.
The Court found that the impugned FIR, which led to the police report and the cognizance order, violated all known principles of criminal liability. It was said that an advocate, by his profession, is authorized to defend men charged with murders, rape, terror offences, and it is his/her duty to defend them. The Court stated that if an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client for doing a professional act like preferring an appeal, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice. It was held that such a situation, which strikes at the roots of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, could not be permitted, as an advocate must work fearlessly and discharge his duties, just as an officer of the State is entitled to discharge his duties.
The Court said that even if the Deputy Commissioner thought that the pre-deposit could not be debited to the Electronic Ledger out of the Input Tax Credit, the professional decision of the advocate did not, in any way, make him a conspirator with the assessee. It was opined that the impugned FIR, the chargesheet, and the cognizance order could not be sustained and quashed all three to the extent that they were concerned with the petitioner.
