9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1031 - HC - GSTNon-bailable warrants - Apprehension for taking into custody - Recovery of taxes - Constitutional Validity of of Sections 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - A special enactment has been enacted for recovery of taxes under enabling provisions contained in Section 4 of the Cr.P.C. This Court is of prima facie view that the Parliament is empowered under Article 246-A of the Constitution to enact special laws with regard to Goods and Services Tax. The legislation enacted is for levy and collection of taxes on supply of Goods and Services having special provisions for recovery of revenue. It being a fiscal matter a distinct procedure appears to have been evolved by the Parliament by virtue of a special enactment which is permissible under Section 4 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of the code. In such cases effective interrogation of suspected person(s) is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. The prayer for interim protection to the petitioner during the pendency of the investigation cannot be accepted - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, interim relief during pendency of writ petition, legality of coercive action, powers of Legislature under Article 246-A of the Constitution of India, investigation of CGST offences under Cr.P.C., GST evasion amount, relevance of past court judgments on pre-arrest bail and interim protection, special enactment for tax recovery, custodial interrogation, authorization for arrest, and final decision on interim relief. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the vires of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act 2017 and sought interim relief due to non-bailable warrants issued against him. The petitioner's apprehension of being taken into custody during appearance before the authority was the main concern. The petitioner's counsel cited legal issues regarding the powers of the Legislature under Article 246-A and the applicability of Cr.P.C. provisions to CGST offences. The respondents argued against granting interim relief by highlighting the petitioner's alleged efforts to obstruct the investigation and evade GST payment. They emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the amount of GST evasion involved, and the non-bailable nature of the offence. Reference was made to past court judgments on similar matters, including the dismissal of special leave petitions by the Supreme Court. The court discussed past judgments, including the Telangana High Court and Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing the need for clarity on legal positions. The court also referred to specific cases where interim protection against arrest was denied, highlighting the importance of investigating tax-related matters thoroughly. The court acknowledged the special enactment for tax recovery and the authorization for arrest in case of non-cooperation. The court recognized the significance of custodial interrogation in tax-related cases but refrained from expressing a final opinion on the matter due to the focus on interim relief. Ultimately, the court declined the petitioner's plea for interim protection during the investigation, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court allowed the petitioner's counsel to refer to the current order in related proceedings and scheduled the main case for further arguments on a specific date.
|
