9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.29 crore as alleged by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the quantum of demand has not yet been assessed by the authorities. The amount specified by the respondent authorities is only an assumption based on their investigation so far. It is submitted that the petitioner has cooperated with the authorities concerned and therefore, there was no need or necessity to keep him under detention. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to the Judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in Daulat Samirmal Mehta Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 200 wherein in a similar situation, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had invoked its power to pass an order releasing the petitioner from detention on the conditions mentioned in the order. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the order of the Apex Court which was rendered in an appeal which was preferred against the said Judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Apex Court by the order dated 01.03.2023 had confirmed the release order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court while interfering with the conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court for release on bail. It is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with this order of detention passed by the respondent authorities. This order came to be appealed against by the Revenue Authorities and the Apex Court by the order dated 01.03.2023 upheld the bail granted while interfering with the conditions prescribed. The conditional bail granted was sustained by the Apex Court and two of the conditions imposed by the Bombay High Court were interfered with. Following this judgment, another judgment was rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in WP(ST) No.5484 of 2021 Sunil Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India & Others along with WP(ST) No.5486 of 2021 (Akshay Chhabra Vs. Union of India & Others). 7. In the subsequent writ petition also the Bombay High Court following the earlier order had interfered with the detention orders passed by the respondent authorities. 8. The judgment of the Apex Court referred by the respondents on the question whether for grant of the pre arrest bail, the powers under Article 226 can be invoked. The Apex Court held that while the power is available but the same has to be sparingly used and in the facts of that case held that the power ought not to have been invoked. 9. In so far as the Delhi High Court judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtension of the remand before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. 14. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the proceeding initiated against him vide the Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/3384/2024 under Section 132 (1) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, (CGST) Act, 2017 and also a prayer for release of the petitioner from custody. 15. The power of writ court to issue direction to release from custody has been discussed in several judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts of this country. The power although available is to be used sparingly where the facts demand. In Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) while dealing with the proceeding where pursuant to summons issued by the Goods and Services Authority, the assessee, apprehending arrest had approached the Gujarat High Court praying for grant of Pre-arrest bail. The Gujarat High court disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to appear before the authority and if any apprehension is necessary, the authority will give further opportunity of two weeks. Being aggrieved, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court upon examination of several earlier judgments of the Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l leave No. 3879/2021 praying for interfering with the condition mentioned in the bail granted by the Bombay High Court. 18. The Apex Court upon consideration of the matter in its entirety held that the bail order granted by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court stood confirmed however the conditions Nos. 5 and 6 in the said order shall not be pre conditions for release on bail. The other conditions were left undisturbed and to be complied with by the petitioner therein. 19. Following the judgment in Daulat Samirmal Mehta Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 200 Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in another matter decided in Sunil Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(ST) No. 5484/2021] & ors along with other connected matter again held with the question of the exercise of the power under Section 69 will arise only upon determination of the liability and consequently enlarging the petitioner therein on bail. 20. Having noticed the above judgments cited at the bar what is clear is that while the power to arrest is conferred under Section 69 of the CGST Act the same shall only be imposed only upon reasons to believe to be arrived at by the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Act, the question remains is whether arrest or detention is called for merely because is power is available on the authority to do so. 24. In Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (surpa) it was held as under : "57. While considering an application for the grant of bail under article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must consider the settled factors which emerge from the precedents of this court. These factors can be summarized as follows : (i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction; (ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complaint or the witnesses; (iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations." 25. The Apex Court hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uggests that the determination of the liability has been arrived that by the Commissioner or the investigating officer. Under such circumstances this court of the view that continued detention of the petitioner at the stage of investigation is not required. This therefore court considers that the petitioner can be released on interim bail until further orders. 29. Let notice be issued returnable 4 (four) weeks. Respondents may complete their instructions has filed necessary affidavit if so advised. Since respondents are represented by Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, GST notices waived however, extra copies be furnished within the period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 30. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1 Lakh as well as execute a bail bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and the subject to following conditions : (1) That the accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and co-operate with the investigation; (2) That the accused-petitioner shall not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
