# Maloo v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 11855 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maloo-v-state-of-u-p-52804
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

12 All. Maloo Vs. State Of U.P.
1169

30. The appellant, Azad Khan is in
jail. He is directed to be released forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.

31.
Before
being
released,
the
appellant shall execute a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.20,000/- under Section 481
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (corresponding to Section 437-A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for
his appearance, in the event of an appeal
being preferred against his acquittal.

32. Let a copy of this Judgment and
order be sent to the Trial Court concerned,
forthwith, alongwith the Trial Court record,
for information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1169
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 11855 of 2025

Maloo ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings
against the appellant, arising out of land
allotments made in 1997 and FIR lodged in
2022, amounts to abuse of process of law.

Whether invocation of IPC offences and Section
3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act is legally sustainable in
absence of specific allegations, overt acts, or
caste-based intent.

Whether the cognizance/summoning order was
passed mechanically without judicial application
of mind.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) - Section 161, 14-A, 14-A(1) -
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(f) -
Criminal Appeal under section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST
Act
-
assailing
the
charge-sheet,
summoning order as well as the entire criminal
proceeding - criminal proceedings arising out of
alleged irregularities in land allotments made in
1997 - FIR lodged in year 2022 - delay of 25
years - the appellant was not named in the FIR
- no specific role or overt act was attributed to
him - investigation - plea taken that all the
allegations
were
vague,
omnibus,
and
essentially civil/revenue in nature - court finds
that - invocation of IPC offences and Section
3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act was held to be
mechanical and unsupported
by statutory
ingredients, and the summoning order was
passed without judicial application of mind -
further, observed that criminal prosecution
cannot be used to circumvent or replace
statutory remedies available under revenue law
- relying on precedents such as Bhajan Lal,
Anand Kumar Mohatta, Hitesh Verma, Pepsi
Foods, and recent Supreme Court rulings, court
held that, continuation of prosecution would
amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of
justice, and therefore quashed the cognizance
order,
charge-sheet,
and
entire
criminal
proceedings against the appellant.(Para - 16,
22, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335) - Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT
of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706 - Indian Oil
Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd (2006) 6 SCC 738
- Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
(2015) 8 SCC 293 - Hitesh Verma v. State of
Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 - Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC
749 - Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2023) 8 SCC 734 -
Anukul Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) - Konde
Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty
(2025) - Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2025).

LIST OF ACTS
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Criminal Appeal - Land allotment - Forgery of
revenue records - Civil vs. criminal dispute -
Delay in FIR (24 years) - Mechanical summoning
order - SC/ST Act invocation - Abuse of process
of law - Deceased witnesses in charge-sheet -
Omnibus allegations - Quashing of proceedings.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 - Police Station
Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh - Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 (State
vs. Maloo & Others).

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant: - Shri Sageer Ahmad
assisted Sr. Adv. Assisted by Shri Navnath
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent: - AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. Heard Shree Sageer Ahmad,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr
Navnath Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of
U.P. and perused the material available on
record. It is further submitted by learned
AGA that notice has been served upon the
informant as per his record. Moreover, the
informant has lodged the present FIR in his
official capacity and hence there is no
further requirement of issuing notice to the
informant of the case.

2. The present criminal appeal
under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred
assailing
the
impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
20.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in
Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 (State vs.
Maloo & others), the charge-sheet dated
06.02.2023,
and
the
entire
criminal
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
280 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of
the SC/ST Act, Police Station Dadri,
District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Encapsulated facts as per the
First Information Report registered as Case
Crime No. 280 of 2022, at Police Station
Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar by Shri
Pankaj Nirwal, Revenue Inspector, are that
allegations have been levelled regarding
alleged irregularities in allotment and
subsequent transfer of agricultural land of
village Chitahera, Tehsil Dadri. It is stated
that in the year 1997, about 282 persons
were granted pattas/leases of agricultural
land by the competent authority, which
were subsequently approved. Later on,
complaints were received alleging that
some allottees were ineligible and that land
so allotted was transferred to private
persons by execution of sale deeds through
manipulation of revenue records and forged
documents.

4. The FIR further alleges that
certain persons, acting in connivance with
others, committed forgery in revenue
entries, showed enhancement of land area,
and transferred land in violation of
statutory
provisions,
thereby
causing
wrongful loss to the State exchequer and
wrongful gain to the beneficiaries. It is also
alleged that in some cases land meant for
members
of
the
Scheduled
Caste
community was alienated in contravention
of law, resulting in invocation of Section
3(1)(f) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act along with offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B
IPC.
12 All. Maloo Vs. State Of U.P.
1171
5. The FIR primarily rests upon old
revenue records and inquiries relating to
land allotments made more than two
decades prior, and the allegations against
the accused persons are broadly worded,
without attributing specific overt acts, dates
or individual transactions to each accused,
the dispute essentially arising out of alleged
civil and revenue irregularities over land
transactions spanning several years.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant submits that the impugned
cognizance/summoning
order
dated
20.03.2023 and the charge-sheet dated
06.02.2023,
as
well
as
the
entire
proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.
280 of 2022, are manifestly illegal and
amount to abuse of the process of law.

7. It is submitted that the appellant
was
not
even
named
in
the
First
Information Report lodged on 03.07.2022.
The Appellant has been roped into the
criminal proceedings at a subsequent stage
without any material evidence, which
demonstrates
mala
fide
intention
to
implicate him falsely. The FIR was lodged
by Shri Pankaj Nirwal, the then Revenue
Inspector, Tehsil Dadri, who is not a victim
but a government officer discharging
official duties. The allegations pertain to
transactions involving lease land of Village
Chitahaira dating back to 1997, which were
subject to multiple judicial proceedings and
ultimately validated by competent revenue
courts.

8. It is further submitted that the
investigation carried out in the present
matter suffers from grave and fatal
irregularities
that
render
the
entire
prosecution manifestly unjust and an abuse
of the process of law. It is contended that
the Charge sheet dated 06.02.2023 includes
various witnesses out of which five
witnesses had died years before the
investigation commenced and this fact
conclusively
establishes
that
the
investigation is so faulty, unfair, and biased
that continuing the case would amount to
an abuse of the judicial process and result
in
a
miscarriage
of
justice.
The
Investigating Officer could not have
recorded statements of deceased persons,
yet these persons are shown as prosecution
witnesses, exposing the fabricated nature of
the investigation.

9. It is further submitted that the
first informant in his statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr P C, showed
complete ignorance about the material facts
forming the basis of the alleged offences
and merely stated that entire records are
available in the proceedings of allotment of
lease deeds, which demonstrates that the
FIR was lodged mechanically without
personal knowledge of alleged criminal
acts.

10. It is further argued that the
appellant has been falsely implicated
without any specific role or overt act. He is
not named in the FIR. Neither the FIR nor
the charge-sheet discloses any individual
act attributable to the appellant so as to
satisfy the basic ingredients of the alleged
offences. Reliance is placed on the
celebrated
judgment
of
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
wherein it has been held that criminal
proceedings are liable to be quashed where
the allegations do not prima facie constitute
any offence or are manifestly attended with
mala fides.

11.
Learned
counsel
further
submits that the dispute emanates from
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land allotments made in the year 1997 and
subsequent revenue proceedings, and is
essentially civil and revenue in nature.
Criminal law has been set in motion after
an inordinate delay of more than two
decades. Reliance is placed on Anand
Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein the Supreme
Court held that continuation of criminal
proceedings arising out of a purely civil
dispute would amount to abuse of process
of law and deserves interference even at the
stage of cognizance. Reliance is further
placed on the case of Indian Oil
Corporation Vs M/s NEPC India Ltd,
(2006) 6 SCC 738, wherein the Apex Court
has deprecated the tendency to convert the
Civil disputes into criminal proceedings.

12. It is further contended that the
essential ingredients of offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B
IPC are completely absent. There is no
allegation
of
dishonest
intention
at
inception, no material to show preparation
or use of forged documents by the
appellant, and no evidence of criminal
conspiracy. Reliance is placed on Vesa
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala,
(2015) 8 SCC 293, holding that in absence
of mens rea and foundational facts,
criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to
continue.

13. With respect to invocation of
Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, learned counsel submits
that
the
same
has
been
applied
mechanically. Reliance is placed on Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710, wherein the Supreme Court
held that for attracting the provisions of the
SC/ST Act, the offence must be committed
on the ground that the victim belongs to a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and
that disputes of civil nature, even involving
members of SC/ST, would not ipso facto
attract the Act. Lastly, learned counsel
submits that the summoning order has been
passed in a mechanical manner without
application of judicial mind. Reliance is
placed on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749,
wherein it has been held that summoning
an accused is a serious matter and the
Magistrate must carefully examine whether
a prima facie case is made out.

14. Learned A.G.A. opposes the
appeal and submits that the impugned
cognizance order reflects due application of
mind by the learned Special Judge, who,
upon perusal of the charge-sheet and
material
on
record,
found
sufficient
grounds to proceed against the accused
person. The order does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error or perversity warranting
interference under appellate jurisdiction.

15. The Court has considered the
rival submissions and perused the record.

16. From a careful examination of
the FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying
material, it is evident that the allegations
against the appellant are general and
omnibus. No specific role, overt act or
individual transaction has been attributed to
the appellant so as to constitute the
ingredients of the offences alleged. The
principles laid down in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
are clearly attracted.

17. The record further shows that
the dispute arises out of land allotments
made in the year 1997 and subsequent
revenue
proceedings.
The
allegations
primarily relate to alleged irregularities in
revenue records, which have already been
12 All. Maloo Vs. State Of U.P.
1173
the subject matter of civil and revenue
adjudication. In view of the law laid down
in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT
of
Delhi),
(2019)
11
SCC
706,
continuation of criminal proceedings in
such circumstances would amount to abuse
of the process of law.

18. This Court also finds that the
essential ingredients of offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B
IPC are not made out against the appellant.
There is no material indicating dishonest
intention at inception or preparation or use
of forged documents by the appellant.

19. As regards invocation of the
SC/ST Act, the FIR and charge-sheet do
not disclose that the alleged acts were
committed on the ground that the victim
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. In light of the ratio laid down in
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 710, mere reference to
Scheduled Caste land or status of the
informant is insufficient to attract the
provisions of the Act.

20. The impugned cognizance
order dated 20.03.2023 has been passed in
a routine and mechanical manner, without
recording satisfaction regarding existence
of prima facie material
against the
appellant.
Such
an
approach
is
impermissible in view of the law laid down
in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

21.
Further,
perusal
of
the
statements of the informant, independent
witnesses,
inquiry
officer
and
other
witnesses recorded during investigation
fortifies the case of the appellant. From the
statements of various original pattadars and
villagers, it emerges that the pattas were
granted as early as 1997 by competent
authorities; most of the witnesses have not
attributed alleged coercion, threats or
inducement to the present appellant; several
witnesses have categorically stated that
they do not know the appellant personally,
nor have they stated that any document was
executed, forged or registered at the
instance of the present appellant; no
witness has alleged that the appellant
threatened, induced or deceived them, or
received
any
money
from
them
in
connection with the land transactions. The
statements of independent witnesses and
the inquiry officer primarily narrate the
history of revenue litigation, cancellation
proceedings with regard to the lease and
administrative inquiries, but do not disclose
any
active
role
or
criminal
intent
attributable to the appellant. At best, the
material reflects disputes of civil nature.
Significantly, none of the witnesses have
stated that any act was committed by the
accused on the ground that the pattadar
belonged to a Scheduled Caste, which is a
sine qua non for invocation of the SC/ST
Act. Thus, even the oral evidence collected
during investigation does not disclose the
basic ingredients of the offences alleged
against the appellant and fails to establish
any prima facie case.

22. The impugned cognizance
order dated 20.03.2023 has been passed in
a routine and mechanical manner, without
recording satisfaction regarding existence
of prima facie material
against the
appellant.
Such
an
approach
is
impermissible in view of the law laid down
in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra).

23. A further and significant aspect
of the matter is that the appellant is not
named in the First Information Report.
Neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
explains as to how, when or on what basis
the name of the appellant surfaced during
investigation. There is no reference to any
incriminating
document,
transaction,
recovery or statement of any witness
showing the role of the appellant in the
alleged offences.

24. Even upon perusal of the
statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of various witnesses, this Court
does not find any material disclosing that
the appellant was identified by any witness
as a person who induced, coerced,
threatened or participated in preparation or
execution of any forged document. The
prosecution has also failed to disclose the
source of information or link evidence
connecting the appellant with the alleged
conspiracy. In absence of any material
explaining the genesis of the appellant's
implication, the mere inclusion of his name
in
the
charge-sheet
appears
to
be
mechanical and unsupported by evidence,
which cannot be sustained in law. Criminal
prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or
conjectures, particularly when the FIR
itself is silent about the appellant. Record
also discloses that investigation carried out
in the present matter suffers from grave and
fatal irregularities as the Charge sheet dated
06.02.2023 includes various witnesses out
of which five witnesses had died years
before the investigation commenced and
this fact conclusively establishes that the
investigation is faulty, unfair, and biased and
continuing the case would amount to an
abuse of the judicial process and result in a
miscarriage of justice. The Investigating
Officer could not have recorded statements of
deceased persons, yet these persons are
shown as prosecution witnesses, exposing the
fabricated nature of the investigation. The
inclusion of deceased persons as prosecution
witnesses, without any explanation, goes to
the root of the matter and reflects nonapplication of mind during investigation,
thereby rendering the investigation unreliable
and legally unsustainable.

25. Moreover, this Court further
finds that several named and unnamed coaccused persons, arising out of the same FIR
and charge-sheet, have already been granted
relief by Coordinate Benches of this Court.
From a perusal of the orders annexed with the
record, it is evident that similarly situated coaccused have been granted interim protection
after recording categorical findings that the
dispute is predominantly civil and revenue in
nature, that no specific role was assigned to
the applicants therein, and that the provisions
of the SC/ST Act were prima facie not
attracted. The Coordinate Benches, while
granting relief to the co-accused, have
consistently observed that the allegations
pertain to old land allotments and revenue
entries, that the FIR contains general and
omnibus allegations, and that continuation of
criminal proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of law. It has also been noted
in those orders that the essential ingredients
of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120B IPC, as well as Section 3(1)(e) of the
SC/ST Act, were not prima facie made out
against the applicants therein. The role
attributed
to
the
appellant
is
neither
distinguishable nor graver than the role
assigned to those co-accused who have
already been granted relief. No material has
been pointed out by the learned A.G.A. to
demonstrate any distinguishing feature or
additional incriminating circumstance against
the present appellant so as to deny him
similar treatment.

26.
Another
important
aspect
which weighs with this Court is that the
alleged irregularities pertain to allotment of
pattas made as far back as the year 1997
12 All. Maloo Vs. State Of U.P.
1175
and the FIR was registered only on
03.07.2022?a delay of approximately 24-25
years. Even considering the subsequent
events,
the
prosecution
case
alleges
irregularities came to light in 2016, yet the
FIR was lodged after seven years without
any plausible or convincing explanation.
Further despite the passage of more than
two decades, learned A.G.A. has not been
able to point out any civil suit, revenue
proceeding or statutory action initiated for
cancellation of the sale deeds. If the
pattas/sale deeds were illegal, fraudulent or
obtained by misrepresentation, the natural
and
lawful
course
available
to
the
State/aggrieved
was
to
seek
their
cancellation before the competent revenue
or civil forum. However, no material has
been placed on record to show that any
such proceedings were ever initiated or
pursued to their logical conclusion. The
absence of any action for cancellation of
deeds for such a prolonged period clearly
indicates that the dispute is essentially civil
and revenue in nature, and that the criminal
machinery
has
been
set
in
motion
afterthought and as a substitute for
appropriate
civil
remedies,
which
is
impermissible in law. Criminal prosecution
cannot be used to circumvent or replace
statutory remedies available under revenue
law.

27. In Iqbal v. State of U.P.,
(2023) 8 SCC 734, the Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held that delay with other
attending circumstances emerging from the
record rendering the entire case inherently
improbable may become a good ground to
quash
the
FIR
and
consequential
proceedings.

28. This Court also finds support
from the recent pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Anukul Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
(decided on 24.09.2025), the Apex Court
reiterated that where criminal proceedings
are initiated after an inordinate delay in
matters arising out of land and revenue
disputes, and where allegations are vague,
omnibus and unsupported by specific
material indicating mens rea, continuation
of prosecution would amount to abuse of
the process of law. The Court emphasized
that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to
settle civil or revenue disputes, particularly
when
statutory
remedies
remain
unexhausted.

29.
Similarly,
in
Konde
Nageshwar Rao Vs. A. Srirama Chandra
Murty
and
another
(decided
on
23.07.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that mere allegations of forgery or
cheating, without specific attribution of
acts, documents, or intent to the accused,
do not justify criminal prosecution. The
Court
cautioned
against
mechanical
cognizance orders passed solely on the
basis of charge-sheets, observing that
judicial application of mind at the stage of
summoning is a constitutional safeguard
against frivolous prosecutions.

30. Further, in Randheer Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others (decided on
02.09.2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
once again clarified that invocation of the
provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act must strictly satisfy the
statutory requirement that the offence was
committed on the ground that the victim
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. The Court held that disputes relating
to property, land allotment, or revenue
entries, even if involving members of the
SC/ST community, do not ipso facto attract
the provisions of the Act in absence of such
foundational allegations. The Apex Court
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further held that mechanical addition of
offences under the SC/ST Act, without
specific
material,
vitiates
the
entire
prosecution.

31. The ratio laid down in the
aforesaid judgments squarely applies to the
facts of the present case, where the
appellant is not named in the FIR, no
specific role or overt act is attributed to
him, the dispute is predominantly civil and
revenue in nature, the proceedings have
been initiated after an unexplained and
inordinate delay of more than two decades,
and the provisions of the SC/ST Act have
been
invoked
without
satisfying
the
mandatory statutory ingredients.

32. This unexplained inaction on
the part of the State further weakens the
prosecution case and lends support to the
contention that the present proceedings are
an afterthought, initiated belatedly and
without foundational civil adjudication.

33. In the considered opinion of
this Court, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would result in miscarriage of
justice and would amount to abuse of the
process of law.

34. In view of the above, the
instant criminal appeal is allowed. The
impugned cognizance/summoning order
dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in
Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 (State vs.
Maloo
&
others),
the
chargesheet/Supplementary Charge sheet, and the
entire criminal proceedings arising out of
Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B
IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act,
Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh
Nagar stand quashed.
---------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 alongwith other
cases

M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether uploading Show Cause Notices and
Adjudication Orders on the GSTN portal or
sending intimation via email/SMS amounts to
valid "communication" under Section 107 of the
GST Acts, thereby triggering limitation for
appeal.

Whether electronic service alone can be treated
as deemed service under Section 169 of the
GST Acts.

HEADNOTES
Tax Law - U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 -
Sections - 9, 30 - U.P. Value Added Tax
Act, 2008 - Section 32, 55, - Central
Excise Act, 1944 - Section - 35, 37C -
Customs Act, 1962 - Section - 128, 153 -
Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax law) -
Section 83, 85 - Income Tax Act, 1961 -
Section 127, 249, 282 - Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (State & Central
GST Acts) - Section - 107, 107(1), 107(4),
107(11),
161,
169,
169(c)(d),
-
Information
Technology
Act,
2000
-
Section - 4, 12, 13 - Writ petitions - filed by
small and medium traders/manufacturers -
challenging the ex parte GST adjudication
orders, with the dispute centered on whether
service of Show Cause Notices and orders solely
through electronic mode (GSTN portal/email
alerts) amounted to valid "communication"
under Section 107 of the GST Acts so as to start