TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a maximum period of sixty days where the investigation relates to an offence other then those which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and on expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. The rival contentions particularly those relating to delegation of power by the Commissioner regarding recording of reasons to believe for affecting arrest under section 69 of the MGST Act or under the CGST Act may require a deeper analysis by the Court. While we defer examination of the same to subsequent hearing, the same however should not prevent us from dealing with the bail prayer of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n recovery of incriminating materials, it emerged that petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Savvy Fabrics and partner of M/s. Shubhmangal Textile Industries LLP having place of businesses at the addresses mentioned therein. It is alleged that petitioner had actively participated in receiving tax invoices or bills without any actual supplies of goods or services or both and in claiming ineligible input tax credit (ITC) on such invoices, thus violating the provisions of MGST Act, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly the CGST Act hereinafter) and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Therefore, petitioner has committed offences under section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the MGST Act by receiving fake invoices of value not less th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the Commissioner to record reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence punishable under section 132 and on that basis, he may by order authorize any officer to arrest such person. Though respondents have claimed that Commissioner had delegated his powers under section 69, referring to page numbers 119 and 120 of the reply affidavit of the respondents, he submits that even as per these two documents, Commissioner of State Tax, Maharashtra has delegated his power under section 69 to Joint Commissioner of State Tax. Therefore, action of Assistant Commissioner i.e. respondent No.1 in recording his reasons to believe and thereafter affecting arrest of the petitioner is blatantly illegal violating the fundamental rights of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces and therefore required to be arrested would not mean that the said power was exercised independently by the Assistant Commissioner. 5.1. Mr. Mishra has referred to the judgment of the Telangana High Court in P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India 2019(25) G.S.T.L. 185 (Telangana) as well as to an order passed by this Court in the case of Ashish Jain Vs. Union of India Order dated 31.07.2019 passed Cri. W.P. NO. 3804 of 2019. He has also brought to our notice order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Tejas Pravin Dugad Vs. Union of India Order dated 15.01.2021 passed in Cri. WP No. 1715 of 2020 and connected Petitions and a decision dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court in Yogesh Jagdish Kanodia Vs. State of Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and on expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail. 9. As noted at the outset, petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. As on today, he has completed 54 days in custody. Further, as on today no charge sheet has been filed by the respondents before the competent court. Considering the fact that offences in the present case are punishable for a term upto 5 years, provisions of section 167 (2)(a)(ii) would be applicable. That apart, we find from the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner that petitioner has made payment of ₹ 4,68,66,408.00 including ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is understood in law. If the remand application is excluded, then till today after 26 days of custody of the petitioner, there is still no formal accusation against the petitioner. 39. Reverting back to Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), Supreme Court has once again reminded us that the basic rule of our criminal justice system is bail not jail . In cases at the under-trial stage not involving heinous offences like rape, murder, terrorism etc., it is bail and not jail which is the norm. In so far the present case is concerned, notwithstanding the allegation of serious financial impropriety against the petitioner, the case against him is not even at the under-trial stage; it is at the pre-trial stage i.e., at a stage where even forma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
