9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 594 - HC - GSTValidity of summons issued under CGST Act 2017 - cognizable offences - basic contention of the petitioners is that the respondent authority cannot commence investigation without following procedure u/s 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - relief from arrest - HELD THAT - The respondent authorities are investigating the cognizable offence under the CGST Act. The Hon ble Apex Court in case of SAPNA JAIN ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (5) TMI 1610 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT it was an appeal carried to the Apex Court from the judgment and order passed by this Court on 11th April 2017 though has refused to entertain the Special Leave Petition and showed its disinclination to interfere it had observed that the High Courts while entertaining the request of prearrest bail will keep in mind that the Apex Court by order UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SAPNA JAIN AND ORS. 2019 (6) TMI 58 - SC ORDER had dismissed the SLP filed against the judgment and order of Telangana High Court in 2019 (4) TMI 1320 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT a similar matter where the High Court of Telangana has taken a view contrary to the view of the Apex High Court - Since the said order is passed by the Apex Court on 29th May 2019 we are not inclined to grant any protection to the petitioner from his arrest since we are bound by the order passed by the Apex Court. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenging summons under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without following proper procedure. Analysis: The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the summons issued by the respondent under the CGST Act, contending that the investigation cannot commence without following the procedure under Section 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner argued that for a cognizable offense, the respondent should first register an FIR and then investigate, and for a non-cognizable offense, permission from the Magistrate must be obtained. The petitioner sought relief from arrest based on these grounds. Affidavit and Allegations: An affidavit in reply was filed by Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Preventive, alleging that the petitioner had created fictitious companies and defrauded the government by issuing fake invoices and availing Input Tax Credit without actual supply of goods. The respondent contended that the petitioner was a key beneficiary and mastermind behind a fraud involving non-existent supply of goods amounting to about 150 crore with fraudulent credit of ?27 crore. It was argued that the offense was cognizable, and therefore, the summons were rightly issued. Reference was made to a recent order of the Apex Court in a similar matter. Court's Decision: The High Court noted the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offense under the CGST Act, which was being investigated by the respondent authorities. Referring to a previous case, the Court mentioned that the Apex Court had dismissed a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Telangana High Court, implying a disinclination to interfere in such matters. Citing the Apex Court's order, the High Court declined to grant protection to the petitioner from arrest, stating that they were bound by the higher court's decision. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to entertain it further.
|
