TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted. Summons have been issued by the authorized officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act which clearly goes to show that the petitioner is reasoned to believe that he is apprehending his arrest in the hands of the respondent in case after his appearance before the authorizing officer as per Section 69 of the CGST Act. Therefore, in case the petitioner is arrested, he is likely to remand to the judicial custody, after his production before the Magistrate and by looking to the present COVID-19 situation, if he is remanded to the judicial custody, he will be put to hardship and definitely, his health would likely to affect - The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no statutory bar in the CGST Act for granting anticipatory bail by exercising power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Merely, there were number of notices/summons issued by the respondent during the lockdown for COVID-19 that itself is not a ground to reject the bail petition. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, if an anticipatory bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not committed any offence, there is likelihood of his arrest for the non-bailable offence. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to offer any surety. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail. 3. Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, has filed written objections contending that the petitioner is an assessee under the CGST Act. Intelligence has been developed by the Officers of the respondent that the petitioner was engaged in availment of fake input tax credit i.e., availing of credit on the invoices received from the persons without actual supply of goods. Based upon the authorization given by the Competent Authority, summons have been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Officer as per Section 70 of the CGST Act. The power conferred on the Officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act is to summon any person to appear and produce document or examine before him. The inquiry is deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of issuing so many notices/summons, the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the petitioner has contended that in a similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition Nos.497/2019 connected with 498/2019 dated 18.02.2019 in the case of Sri Avinash Aradhya vs. The Commissioner of Central Tax and Sri Mallokaradhya I.P. vs. The Commissioner of Central Tax respectively. He further contended that in a similar case, the Bombay High Court has rejected the bail petition and in the appeal, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Meghraj Moolchand Burad (Jain) vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Pune and Another has granted bail vide order dated 13.12.2018 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no speaking order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in P.V.Ramana Reddy s case in SLP, therefore, there is no law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in order to reject the bail petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited and Others vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376. 8. Writ petitions were filed by P.V.Ramana Reddy before the Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. On the other hand, the jurisdiction under Article 226 has to be sparingly used, as cautioned by the Supreme Court in Km. Hema Misra (cited supra). 9. On merits of the case, the Hon ble Telangana High Court has dismissed the writ petitions, which were challenged by the assesees before the Hon ble Supreme Court by filing SLP Crl.No.4430/2019. The Hon ble Supreme Court has dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 29.05.2019. In the case of Sapna Jain (SLP Crl.Nos.4322-4324/2019), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under: while entertaining any such request in future, the order of the Telangana High Court be kept in mind, wherein the court has taken a view contrary to that of the other High Courts. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with any such cases under the CGST Act, the order passed by the Telangana High Court in P.V.Ramana Reddy s case shall be kept in mind. 10. As already held above in P.V.Ramana Reddy s case, the Telangana High Court has held that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the pre-arrest bail is maintainable, but on the merits, the writ petitions were dismissed as huge amount of tax evaluat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rified by this Court. Hence, the notice. As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this Court by Order dated 27.05.2019 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.4430/2019 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case. 12. Further, the Union of India challenged the granting of relief of bail in favour of Sapna Jain by the Bombay High Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court has not set aside the order of the Bombay High Court. Apart from that, in the case of Meghraj Moolchand Burad (Jain) stated supra in ABA No.2333 of 2018, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the assessee filed SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Crl.) No.244 of 2019 . The Hon ble Supreme Court granted anti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son is arrested under sub-section (1) for an offence specified under sub-section (5) of Section 132, the officer authorized to arrest the person shall inform such person of the grounds of arrest and produce him before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers that where a person is arrested under sub-section (1) for any offence specified under sub-section (4) of Section 132, he shall be admitted to bail or in default of bail, forwarded to the custody of the Magistrate. Sub-section 3(b) of Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers that in a case of non-cognizable and bailable offence, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner shall, for the purpose of releasing an arrested person on bail or otherwise, have the same power and be subject to the same provisions as an Officer in-charge of a Police Station. 15. On bare reading of Section 69 of the CGST Act clearly empowers the Commissioner to authorize any Officer to arrest a person, if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that if a person committed the offence specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 and as per Section 132 (4) of the CGST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and. (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. 16. On bare reading of Section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, where the Commissioner has reasons to believe if a person committed the offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, he may, by order, authorize any officer of central tax to arrest such person. Therefore, the petitioner has reasons to believe that he may be arrested on accusation for having committed non-bailable offence under sub-section 5 of Section 132 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable for the offences committed under the CGST Act and there is no statutory bar for invoking or exercising power under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for the offence committed under the provisions of the CGST Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be accepted. 17. On merits of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
