2023 (7) TMI 1395 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Validity of SCN - Department states that the impugned order is illegal on the face of it as the department had specifically submitted before the learned Special Judge that there is not even a proposal to arrest the accused - HELD THAT - In view of the specific statement by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is no apprehension of arrest, the impugned order on the face of it requires an examination. Hence, the operation of the impugned order is stayed. However, in the event the department feels the necessity of affecting arrest of the accused, he shall be given seven days prior notice by the department. List on 15.09.2023.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to the order granting anticipatory bail u/s 70 of the CGST Act based on absence of apprehension of arrest.

The petitioner challenged the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent, arguing that there was no proposal to arrest the accused, making the bail illegal. The petitioner also highlighted another pending petition challenging the jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi. The respondent's counsel contended that the trial court correctly passed the order due to an imminent danger of arrest u/s 70 of the CGST Act. The court issued notice to the respondent and stayed the operation of the impugned order, requiring the department to provide a seven-day prior notice if arrest is deemed necessary.

Decision: The court stayed the operation of the order granting anticipatory bail, pending further examination, and directed the department to give a seven-day notice before any potential arrest, considering the absence of apprehension of arrest as stated by the petitioner's counsel. The matter was listed for further hearing on 15.09.2023.