Ms Mcleod Russel India Limited vs The State Of Assam on 7 April, 2026

                                                               Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010285722025




                                                        undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/7403/2025

         MS MCLEOD RUSSEL INDIA LIMITED
         A LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
         COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT KEYHUNG
         TEA ESTATE, P.O HOOGRIJAN, TINSUKIA, ASSAM, 786601



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM
         REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
         GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND TAXATION,
         ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006.

         2:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
         TINSUKIA 7 CIRCLE
         TINSUKIA UNIT
         ASSAMG.N.B. ROAD
         TINSUKIA
         ASSAM 786125

         3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
          KAR BHAWAN
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI ASSAM-781006

         4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE TAX
          GST INTELLIGENCE AND ENFORECEMENT UNIT
          KAR BHAWAN
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006

         5:THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES
         ASSAM. KAR BHAWAN
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7

           GUWAHATI-781006. GANESHGURI

           6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST AND CX
            DIBRUGARH AUDIT- I CIRCLEMANDIR PATH
            BOIRAGIMOTH
            NEAR JALAN OUTDOOR STADIUM
            DIBRUGARH 786003

           7:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST
            DIBRUGARH COMMISSIONERATEMILAN NAGAR
            LANE F
            P.O. C.R. BUILDING
            DIBRUGARH 786 003

           8:THE UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
            MINISTRY OF FINANCE
            137
            NORTH BLOCK
            NEW DELHI 11000

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DAS, MR. A. KAUSHIK,B SARMA,MR P K BORA,MR S J
SAIKIA,MR. N N DUTTA,MR P BARUAH,DR. ASHOK SARAF,MS. BANSHIKA PODDER,MR. Z
ISLAM,MS. N UPADHYAY,MR ANKIT KANODIA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION,




                                 BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                      ORDER

Date : 07.04.2026

1. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation.

2. The petitioner's grievance in the instant petition pertains to proceedings initiated by the State GST under Section 67 of the Assam GST, Act, 2017.

Page No.# 3/7

3. It is contended that the business of the petitioner is covered under the Central GST, under which extensive audits have been done and all liabilities have been discharged. However, a show cause notice was issued by the State GST to the petitioner. It is submitted that on 17.12.2025, a search was conducted under Section 67 (2) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. It is also contended that without undergoing the aspect of the inspection, search has been done.

4. After hearing the parties appearing for the respective parties, a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 19.12.2025, has passed the following operative order:-

" The learned AAG, Assam has also placed before this Court materials to show that the basis of the present action is intelligence input. Considering the law holding the field including the recent judgment dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 982 in Special Leave Pet. (C)/6092/2025, it is provided that while there would not be any blanket order of stay, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is however directed to cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law. The aforesaid interim order would however be reconsidered on receipt of the instructions on the returnable date."

5. In the instant case, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed as yet by the State Respondents.

6. Dr. A. Saraf, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in spite of the aforesaid Order dated 19.12.2025, passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities have filed an FIR dated 03.02.2026 against the top officials of the petitioner, i.e. the Managing Director, the Director and the Financial Officer respectively, as well as other unknown Page No.# 4/7

persons involved in the offense. He submits that the FIR dated 03.02.2026 has been filed by the respondent authorities in clear violation of the order dated 19.12.2025 and therefore, the same cannot be sustained under the law. He further submits that FIR has been filed under various Sections of BNS, 2023 in addition to Section 132 of the Assam GST Act, 2017 which is not permissible as the offences alleged have to be investigated under the Special Act i.e., the Assam GST Act, 2017. He submits that the petitioner is fully cooperative with the investigation and there is no occasion to file a fresh FIR on the same offences against the top officials of the petitioner. He submits that without praying for any modification or vacation of the interim order passed on 19.12.2025 by this Court, the respondent authorities could not have filed the aforesaid FIR by violating the order dated 19.12.2025.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Senior Counsel submits that an appropriate order should be passed by this Court to protect the officials of the petitioner named in the FIR dated 03.02.2026, since the same has been passed in sheer violation of the interim protection provided to the petitioner by the order dated 19.12.2025.

8. On the other hand, Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, Finance and Taxation Department submits that no order of blanket stay was passed by this court by an order dated 19.12.2025 and since the petitioner was directed to co-operate with the investigation and the same was not done in spite of several notices to the petitioner, the question of filing of the FIR cannot be raised by the petitioner.

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a copy of the FIR dated 03.02.3026 which is kept on record marking 'X'.

Page No.# 5/7

10. On perusal of the order dated 19.12.2025, it is very clear that an order for not taking any coercive action against the petitioner was passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It was also made clear in the aforesaid order that interim order would be re-considered on receipt of instructions on returnable date. It is also seen that no affidavit whatsoever, has been filed as on date by the respondent authorities. No petition for any modification or cancellation of the aforesaid interim order dated 19.12.2025 has also been filed by the respondent authorities.

11. On a perusal of the FIR dated 03.02.2026, a copy of the letter dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Superintendent of Tax, GST Intelligence and Enforcement Unit, Assam, to the officer-in-charge, Special Task Force, Special Unit, Assam, is found with the request to the officer- in- charge to lodge an FIR against the petitioner for fake availing ITC, forgery and criminal conspiracy under Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and BNS, 2023. In the aforesaid communication to the officer-in-charge, the following actions were requested:

i) Register an FIR M/S against M/s Mcleod Russel India Limited, its Managing Director, AGST Act, 2017 and BNS 2023.

ii) Conduct a thorough and in-depth investigation into the offence, including tracing of money trail and identification of all conspirators.

iii) Take necessary coercive and preventive measures as per law to safeguard Government revenue and prevent further misuse of the GST system.

12. The aforesaid requests make it clear that there is a clear request for taking coercive steps against the top officials of the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to certain judicial Page No.# 6/7

pronouncements of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court to buttress his submission that when an offence is allegedly committed under a special statute, then the investigation has to be carried out under the provisions of the aforesaid statute alone and not under the regular penal statute, i.e. BNS, 2023.

13. Taking into account of the fact that an interim order in favour of the petitioner has already been passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.12.2025, whereby it was directed to the responding authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, it is not understandable how a responsible Government authority of the State of Assam can request for filing of an FIR and thereby request for taking coercive measures against the petitioner on the face of the aforesaid order dated 11.03.2026.

14. This Court could not find any application for modification/ cancellation of the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2025. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner and its officials are not cooperating with the investigation, the responding authorities were at liberty to approach this Court by way of filing an application for modification or cancellation of the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2025. However, without taking that recourse, the responding authorities, without taking any leave from this Court, has filed the aforesaid FIR dated 03.02.2026 against the top officials of the petitioner in apparent violation of the aforesaid interim order.

15. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the interim order passed on 19.12.2025 stays until any further order in that regard by this Court. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall not take any coercive action against the officials named in the Page No.# 7/7

FIR of the petitioner in terms of the FIR dated 03.02.2026.

16. As far as the submission of the learned Senior Counsel about filing of the FIR under various Sections of BNS 2023, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the details of the cases cited by the learned Senior Counsel, at this stage.

17. Let the matter be listed after the ensuing Bihu vacation.

18. Interim order passed earlier shall continue until further order(s).

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant