2020 (10) TMI 1216 - HC - GST

Grant of regular bail - Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act - HELD THAT - The criminal trial for the offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017 as also the arrest under Section 69 are without jurisdiction, having no backing of the constitutional provisions - The petitioner has been in custody for a period of 4 months and 14 day. The trial will take time to conclude, especially due to prevailing situation of Covid-19. The moot question of law regarding the stage of initiation of prosecution under the Finance Act is involved; complaint is triable by a Magistrate; the petitioner is not required for further custodial investigation - Thus, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him furnishing bail/surety bonds.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in a criminal complaint under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a businessman, sought regular bail in a criminal complaint under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act. The petitioner claimed false implication along with 5 others, stating the matter is civil in nature with debatable liability. The maximum sentence under the Act includes imprisonment up to 5 years. The petitioner relied on previous court orders highlighting issues of jurisdiction and arrest under Section 69 as without constitutional backing. Additionally, a communication from the department indicated zero tax liability and penalty towards the petitioner. The Officiating Deputy Superintendent's affidavit confirmed the petitioner's custody period of 4 months and 14 days, with a liability potentially exceeding ?8.2 crore.

The court noted that the criminal trial and arrest under Section 69 were without jurisdiction, lacking constitutional provisions. Considering the petitioner's custody duration and the anticipated delay due to the Covid-19 situation, the court emphasized the legal question surrounding the initiation of prosecution under the Finance Act, the trial's jurisdiction before a Magistrate, and the absence of necessity for further custodial investigation. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on regular bail upon satisfying the trial Court/Duty Magistrate with bail/surety bonds. The petitioner was instructed to surrender the passport to the Court and refrain from leaving India without prior court permission.