Case Details: Samarpan Jain vs. State of U.P. (2026) 43 Centax 73 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- J.J. Munir & Tarun Saxena, JJ.
- S/Shri Sharad Sharma & Sushil Shukla, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was an advocate engaged by a GST assessee to file statutory appeals against orders passed by the deputy commissioner, GST. The petitioner filed two online appeals and debited 10% pre-deposit from the electronic credit ledger (ECL) using input tax credit (ITC). The appellate authority declined to accept this mode of pre-deposit, sought clarification, and subsequently dismissed the appeals on maintainability grounds. Thereafter, the deputy commissioner lodged an FIR alleging illegal debit from the ECL and tax evasion. The police filed a charge sheet, and the ACJM took cognizance of the matter. The petitioner challenged the FIR, the charge-sheet, and the cognizance order. The case was then placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the proceedings against the advocate arose from acts performed while representing a GST assessee in statutory appeals. It was further held that filing appeals and arranging statutory pre-deposit constituted professional acts. Even if the debit of ECL for pre-deposit was impermissible in law, such action remained a professional decision made during the appeal process and did not constitute a conspiracy. The Court observed that advocates cannot be subjected to criminal liability for such professional acts undertaken on behalf of their clients. Accordingly, the FIR, charge-sheet, and cognizance order were quashed insofar as the petitioner was concerned.
List of Cases Cited
Union of India v. Yasho Industries Ltd. — (2025) 30 Centax 352 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 8]
Yasho Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — (2024) 24 Centax 338 (Guj.) = 2025 (92) G.S.T.L. 498 (Guj.) — Referred [Paras 8, 12]
