2021 (2) TMI 683 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner to arrest - reasons to believe that such a person has committed the offence specified under Section 132(a) to (d) of the Customs Act, is present - HELD THAT - The petitioner shall be released on interim bail in case the Commissioner passes an order authorizing the arrest of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 69 of the Act and proposes to detain him. It is made clear that the said order is purely interim in nature and subject to petitioner joining the investigation and putting in appearance before the concerned authorities on 2-9-2020 at 10 AM. Reply be filed by the respondent, in the meantime.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Apprehension of arrest due to summons issued under Section 70 of the Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 132 of the Act regarding the availing or utilization of input tax credit over ?5 crores.
4. Premature filing of the petition before the Commissioner's order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the Act.
5. Cooperation in the investigation and willingness to appear before authorities.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the summons issued under Section 70 of the Act led to an apprehension of arrest. Reference was made to the powers of the Commissioner under Section 69 to order arrest for specified offences under Section 132(a) to (d), punishable under sub-sections of Section 132 of the Act.

2. The petitioner expressed concerns regarding the potential non-bailable nature of the offence under Section 132(5) if the input tax credit of over ?5 crores had been wrongly availed or utilized. The lack of quantification of the amount in the summons added to the apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence. The court took note of these submissions and the need for clarity in the investigation process.

3. The respondent argued that the amount was yet to be quantified, and no order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the Act had been passed by the Commissioner. It was highlighted that the petitioner had a previous arrest related to GST fraud and was released on interim bail due to the COVID-2019 situation. The respondent pointed out the petitioner's non-appearance after a certain date following the issuance of summons.

4. The petitioner, through their counsel, mentioned the dismissal of anticipatory bail on a previous date and emphasized the willingness to cooperate in the investigation. The petitioner expressed readiness to appear before the authorities if granted interim protection. The court considered these submissions and the petitioner's stance on cooperation in the ongoing investigation process.

5. In the final decision, the court ordered the petitioner's release on interim bail if the Commissioner passed an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the Act. The interim bail was subject to the petitioner joining the investigation and appearing before the concerned authorities on a specified date. The court emphasized the interim nature of the order and directed the respondent to file a reply in the meantime.