Writ Court Cannot Exercise Jurisdiction to Interfere in Criminal Proceedings Involving Disputed Questions of Fact

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a criminal proceeding (C.R. Case No. 530 of 2025) arising from a complaint filed by the Superintendent, Siliguri CGST

The complaint alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, involving tax invoices issued without actual supply of goods

The petitioner, who was arrested and later released on bail, argued that the arrest was jurisdictional error and that the prosecution violated Ministry of Finance guidelines regarding the timeframe for filing complaints and the procedure for seeking sanction

The petitioner further contended that the prosecution relied on electronic toll data while ignoring exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage and Panchnamas

1. Whether a Writ Court under Article 226 should interfere with or quash a pending criminal proceeding involving disputed questions of fact

2. Whether the ratio of Suncraft Energy (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax applies to criminal prosecutions under the CGST Act

The court applied the principle of self-imposed restriction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which dictates that the High Court should not conduct fact-finding inquiries or interfere with triable issues when facts are disputed

Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, regarding criminal penalties for invoice fraud

Section 157(2), which provides certain protections to officers acting in good faith

The court distinguished the precedent of Suncraft Energy (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax [2023] 153 taxmann.com 81 (Calcutta), noting it applied to revenue recovery and statutory violations, not criminal trials

The court observed that the complaint (Annexure-P10) raised several intricate factual issues that constitute the foundation of the criminal trial

It reasoned that since these factual disputes—such as the receipt of goods and the validity of electronic data—require a conclusive decision in a properly constituted trial, the Writ Court is not the appropriate forum to intervene

Justice Aniruddha Roy emphasized that a Writ Court should not "usurp the jurisdiction of a Criminal Court" which is the designated jurisdictional forum for such trials

The court further noted that the petitioner’s legal challenges, including issues of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory guidelines, could be adequately raised as a defense during the trial before the jurisdictional magistrate in Siliguri

The court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and granted the petitioner liberty to raise all legal and factual points before the criminal court

The jurisdictional criminal court was directed to expedite the trial and reach a logical conclusion in accordance with law