2020 (9) TMI 882 - HC - GST

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner not only the bail application is allowed without issuing any notice to the Department but the Court which granted anticipatory bail had no jurisdiction to grant the same as such application could have been listed either before the learned CMM or before the learned ASJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. HELD THAT - Issue notice to the respondents through all modes including email returnable on 20.10.2020.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the court in granting anticipatory bail without notice to the Department, validity of the bail application granted, jurisdiction of Delhi Courts in granting anticipatory bail to a respondent from another state.

In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna of the Delhi High Court, the court dealt with a petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Session's Judge regarding a bail application. The petitioner, represented by the Standing Counsel for the Department, contended that the bail application was allowed without issuing any notice to the Department. It was argued that the court granting anticipatory bail lacked jurisdiction, as the application should have been presented before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Courts in New Delhi. The petitioner further highlighted that significant seizures by the department indicated potential tax evasion amounting to crores of rupees, emphasizing that the investigation was ongoing. Additionally, it was pointed out that the respondent, who belonged to Indore, Madhya Pradesh, had the cause of action arising in the same state, questioning the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts to grant anticipatory bail in such a scenario.

The court, considering the submissions made by the petitioner, issued notice to the respondents through various modes, including email, with a returnable date of 20.10.2020. This step was crucial in ensuring that all parties involved were duly informed and given an opportunity to respond to the contentions raised in the petition. The court's decision to issue notice indicated a fair and just approach to the matter, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the jurisdictional aspects and the validity of the bail application granted by the lower court. The judgment reflected a meticulous consideration of legal principles and procedural requirements, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to jurisdictional norms in matters concerning anticipatory bail applications and tax-related issues.