9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1449 - HC - GSTValidity of summons for appearance of the petitioner for arrest for violation of Section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 - non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The High Court for the State of Telangana in P. P. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India 2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that there is vast difference between the phrase reasons to believe when placing reliance under Section 69 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and the phrase reasons are to be recorded under Section 41A(3) of Cr.P.C. The said Judgment does not laid down that Section 41A notice has to be issued to an offender who has allegedly committed an offence under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. There are no substance in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. are to be complied with in case of an offender for violation of Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that one opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the authorities for the purpose of recording his statement is to be given and, therefore, the petitioner is directed to appear before the authority concerned on 13.09.2023 (Wednesday). Petition disposed off.
Issues: Impugning summons for arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 without compliance of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C.
Summary: The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the summons issued for the arrest of the petitioner for violating Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that the arrest is sought without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., citing a Supreme Court judgment. On the other hand, the Government Pleader contends that the petitioner has been issued a notice for appearance but failed to appear, labeling the petitioner as an absconder. The Court examines the submissions and refers to a judgment from the High Court for the State of Telangana regarding the interpretation of relevant provisions. The High Court for the State of Telangana has emphasized the distinction between "reasons to believe" under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and "reasons are to be recorded" under Section 41A(3) of Cr.P.C. It clarifies that only the safeguards provided under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. need to be considered when arresting a person for offenses under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court concludes that compliance with Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in the case of an offender violating Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. However, it directs the petitioner to appear before the authorities for recording his statement, allowing one opportunity and emphasizing that the authority should consider relevant parameters before any arrest, as per the referenced judgment. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions and findings, maintaining the discretion of the authority regarding the arrest of the petitioner and highlighting the importance of following the prescribed parameters as per the relevant judgment.
|
