2025 (5) TMI 1511 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of transit anticipatory bail - non-existent firm - summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act 2017 for the said GST inquiry - HELD THAT - This Court does not find any merit in the application as during the course of hearing it is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is not present in the Court to attend the hearing of this case and the application has been filed on the basis of the instructions given by the accused applicant. Once the applicant has claimed to be innocent then the plea for pre-arrest bail ordinarily should be raised before the court where the jurisdiction lies. By now it is settled law that the concession of transit anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances where the denial of such a concession may result in prejudice to the accused-applicant. The limited concession cannot be granted in a routine manner and in this regard a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoriya Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2023 (11) TMI 1286 - SUPREME COURT Resultantly without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court, through Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J., dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transit anticipatory bail. The applicant, Abhishek Pathak, proprietor of M/S Samridhi Trading, apprehended arrest following summons under Sections 208, 210, 229, 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, related to a GST inquiry alleging the firm to be non-existent.The Court emphasized that transit anticipatory bail is granted only in "exceptional circumstances" where denial would cause prejudice to the accused, citing the Supreme Court decision in Priya Indoriya v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749. Since the applicant was not present in court and the plea was made on instructions without attending the hearing, the Court held that ordinarily, pre-arrest bail must be sought before the competent jurisdictional court.Accordingly, the Court held: "the limited concession [of transit anticipatory bail] cannot be granted in a routine manner," and dismissed the application without expressing any opinion on the merits.