Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Ranjit Singh Atwal vs Commissioner Of Central Tax And Cgst ... on 8 January, 2026

Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani

                          $~75
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CRL.M.C. 129/2026
                                    RANJIT SINGH ATWAL                                                              .....Petitioner
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Sheezan Hashmi, Mr. Mihir
                                                                                      Joshi, Mr. Sidharth Malhotra and Mr.
                                                                                      Sarthak Jain, Advocates.
                                                                  versus

                                    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CGST DELHI EAST
                                                                           .....Respondent
                                                Through: Mr. P.C. Aggarwala, SPP.
                                                         Mr. Akash Panwar, Standing Counsel
                                                         (JR).

                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                                                  ORDER

% 08.01.2026 CRL.M.A. 458/2026 (exemption) Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week. The application stands disposed of.

By way of the present application filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS'), the petitioner seeks stay of further proceedings in Complaint Case No.3738/2024 titled as CGST vs. Ranjeet Singh Atwal, pending before the learned CMM, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2. Issue notice.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/01/2026 at 20:31:08

3. Learned counsel appears for the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

4. Let reply be filed within 04 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 03 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

5. Re-notify on 24th April 2026.

6. By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the BNSS, the petitioner seeks setting-aside/quashing of order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.3738/2024.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that a perusal of the order of cognizance dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate would show the complete lack of application of mind, inasmuch as cognizance of the offences under sections 9A and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been taken without any reasoning or any consideration of the allegations against the petitioner.

8. Counsel further submits, that the non-application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate is also evident from the fact that the cognizance order records that the complaint has been filed against the accused "without arrest", whereas a perusal of para 11 of the complaint itself would show that the petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2021; and was subsequently admitted to bail.

9. Other things part, it is argued, that since cognizance was taken after coming into force of the BNSS, the learned Magistrate was obliged to comply with the provisions of section 223 of the BNSS which CRL.M.C. 129/2026 Page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/01/2026 at 20:31:08 mandates that no cognizance of an offence is to be taken without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

10. Issue notice.

11. Learned counsel appears for the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file reply.

12. Let reply be filed within 04 weeks; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 03 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent submits, that the complaint is dated 06.06.2024, and is therefore covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.Counsel further submits that the impugned order was passed almost a year-and-a-half ago; and the petitioner has appeared before the learned Magistrate and participated in the proceedings, which are at the stage of supply of documents.

14. Counsel for the petitioner disputes the above submission, to point-out that a perusal of the cognizance order would show that the complaint was filed on 03.07.2024 i.e., after coming into force of the BNSS on 01.07.2024; and would therefore be governed by the provisions of the BNSS.

15. However, this court is of the view that since the inquiry or investigation was pending before coming into force of the BNSS, this aspect will need to be considered subsequently.

16. Re-notify on 24th April 2026.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J JANUARY 8, 2026/ak CRL.M.C. 129/2026 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/01/2026 at 20:31:08