Divya Prakash Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

Divya Prakash Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P… — GST and Indirect Tax | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection granted: till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, subject to their cooperation with the investigation; counter affidavit(s) within four weeks, reply within two weeks, matter listed thereafter. The petition itself was not finally decided.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 623 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the offences alleged fall under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Section 132 thereof.

Court's answer

A perusal of the impugned FIR shows that the complainant himself indicated that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners are under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, meaning thereby that the respondents themselves have proceeded under the provisions of that Act.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the aforesaid, prima facie a case for interference is made out.

Key takeaways

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned FIR.ratio¶20
The interim protection is conditional: the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, failing which the protection of the order may be withdrawn on an application moved by the prosecution or the complainant.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Abdul Moin and Zafeer Ahmad, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2922 of 2026, decided April 17, 2026: Petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 623 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya, contending that the offences alleged fall under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 132 thereof, and placing reliance on the interim order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4353 of 2025, Rama Road Line through Proprietor Surendra Singh vs State of U.P. Observing that the complainant himself had indicated the offences to be under the 2017 Act, the Court found a prima facie case for interference and directed that till the next date of listing no coercive action be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, conditioned on their cooperation with the investigation, failing which the protection may be withdrawn on application of the prosecution or the complainant. Respondents granted four weeks to file counter affidavit(s); reply within two weeks; matter listed thereafter.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2922 of 2026

Divya Prakash Tiwari And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranjal Krishna, Shahla Zubair Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 11

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

1 . Heard.

2 . The respondents pray for and are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit(s) to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.

3 . List thereafter.

4 . By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.623 of 2025 under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Ayodhya.

5 . Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that from a perusal of the impugned FIR it is apparent that the complainant has indicated that offences as indicated in the impugned FIR primarily fall under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2017').

6 . The contention is that once from the perusal of the FIR it emerges that offences fall under the provisions of the Act, 2017 consequently there cannot be any occasion for lodging of the impugned FIR keeping in view the specific provisions of the Section 132 of the Act, 2017. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on the interim order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this Court in CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 4353 of 2025 In Re Rama Road Line through Proprietor Surendra Singh vs State of U.P.

CRLP No. 2922 of 2026

2

7 . A perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the complainant has himself indicated that the offences as committed by the petitioners (who have been named subsequently on the basis of statements of certain other persons) have indulged in the offence under the provisions of the Act, 2017 meaning thereby that the respondents themselves have proceeded under the provisions of the Act, 2017.

8 . Considering the aforesaid prima facie a case for interference is made out. As such till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned FIR.

9. Needless to mention that the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, failing which, protection of this order may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant.

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

April 17, 2026 prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench