9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with GST Investigation vide DGGI File NO. DGGI/INV/FUP/18/2025- GrB-O/oADG-DGGI-ZU-GUWAHATI/349. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present petitioner is a businessman by profession and is the proprietor of M/S MRN METAL & MINERALS (GSTIN 18ACKPM0634N1Z9), situated at FCI Road, Brakpur, Ramnagar, Tarapur Part 5, Cachar, Assam and it is duly registered under the relevant provision of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, 'CGST Act, 2017'). He further submitted that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail on 27.03.2025, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Agency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pproximately Rs. 3.42 Crores during the relevant financial period. It is also mentioned that the substantial ITC appeared to be predominantly based on invoices received from two entities, namely, M/S Nilima Hardware and M/S P.S Enterprise. Thus, it is seen that as per the assessment, the present petitioner had evaded tax of Rs. 3.42 Crores which is admittedly less than Rs. 5 Crores and thus, it can be considered as a bailable offence as per the provision of the CGST Act. Mr. Medhi further submitted that from the statement made by the respondent in paragraph No. 4.8 of the Bail Objection, it is also seen that the petitioner had co-operated in the investigation and his statement is also recorded by the Investigating Officer. He also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appln. 3771/2021 in Crl. M.A. 16552/2021 and emphasized on paragraph No. 40 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made the observation that "on close reading of the above said Sections, the maximum punishment provided under the Act is five years and fine and if that is taken into consideration, the magnitude of the alleged offence and it is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even as per the said provision, the alleged offence is also compoundable with the Authority, who has initiated the said proceedings. The only consideration which the Court has to consider while releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail is, that whether the petitioners can be secured for the purpose of investigation or for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sential that the application for anticipatory bail should be moved only after an FIR is filed, as long as facts are clear and there is a reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. This principle was confirmed recently by a Constitution Bench of Five Judges of this Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another.55 Some decisions 56 of this Court in the context of GST Acts which are contrary to the aforesaid ratio should not be treated as binding. 9. Accordingly, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is still in Assam and is ready to co-operate the Investigating Officer in further investigation of the case if he is extended with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. 10. Mr. Keyal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigating agency and he did not appear before the Office of the GST in spite of receiving the Notice under Section 70 of CGST Act. However, only after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Agency, but did not co-operated as required for the purpose of investigation. In that context, Mr. Keyal also produced the Case Diary showing that the petitioner is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer and not disclosed many facts and even the documents in relation to the present case. However, it is submitted by Mr. Keyal that the anticipatory bail application was filed only after issuance of Notice under Section 70 of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petitione, viz-a-viz the Case Diary produced by the respondent. It is an admitted position that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail, though initially he tried to appear through his engaged counsel after receiving the Notice under Section 70 of the CGST Act. Further it is seen that after the preliminary investigation and analysis of the GST Returns from the available data, it was found that prima facie the petitioner filed ineligible ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 3.42 Crores during the relevant financial period which were predominantly based on invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
