Supreme Court Rejects Ex-Chhattisgarh CM's Dy Secretary Saumya Chaurasia's Plea Against Sanction Notices In Tax Evasion Case
Debby Jain
4 March 2026 10:12 AM IST
The Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea filed by Saumya Chaurasia, former Deputy Secretary to ex-Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, challenging sanction notices issued under the Income Tax Act authorizing her prosecution in a tax evasion case.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and rejected Chaurasia's challenge to the Delhi High Court order which dismissed her petition on the above issue.
It however added that she would be at liberty to raise all contentions, including on the validity of the prosecution sanction, at the appropriate stage before the competent Court. The competent Court shall examine these contentions without being influenced by the High Court order, it said.
Senior Advocate Balbir Singh appeared for Chaurasia.
Briefly put, the assessment proceedings were initiated against Chaurasia after a search and seizure operation conducted at her Chhattisgarh residence in February, 2020. In 2022, she was arrested by ED and two years later, EOW (Chhattisgah) registered two FIRs against her. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment proceedings and challenging the assessment orders, Chaurasia moved the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Subsequently, a third FIR was registered against her and the Supreme Court granted her interim bail in the ED case. Later, the PCIT passed the impugned orders authorizing initiation of prosecution under Section 276C of the Act, and conviction of Chaurasia under the said provision was sought.
Last year, Chaurasia approached the High Court challenging orders dated 10.02.2025, 11.02.2025, and 19.02.2025 passed by the PCIT under Section 279(1) of the IT Act, 1961 authorizing initiation of prosecution and institution of a criminal complaint against her under Sections 276C and 278E of the Act for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15, 2017-18, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2022-23. She also challenged Circular No.5/2020 dated 23.01.2020 issued by the CBDT.
Before the High Court, Chaurasia argued inter-alia that the prosecution could only have been initiated by the sanctioning authority with prior administrative approval, but the approval was not taken. She further contended that the ITAT had not confirmed/imposed the penalty and the prosecution proceedings ought not to have been initiated during pendency of her appeals before CIT(A).
The Revenue, on the other hand, countered that prosecution was initiated only after obtaining approval from the sanctioning authority, that is, PCIT, since the tax amount exceeded Rs.25 lakhs. It was contended that approval was required to be obtained from the PCIT, and not a collegium of 2 CCIT/DGIT rank officers.
After hearing the parties, the High Court noted that the amount demanded was more than Rs.348 crores (exceeded Rs.25 lakhs). Therefore, appropriate authority for initiating prosecution was the sanctioning authority, ie PCIT, and not a collegium of 2 CCIT/DGIT rank officers. "In a case pertaining to Section 276(C)(1) of the Act, where the tax evaded exceeded Rs.25 lacs, the approving authority in such a case would be the sanctioning authority, i.e. PCIT" it said.
Case Title: SAUMYA CHAURASIA Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 3405-2026