9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 979 - HC - GSTGrant of anticipatory bail - alleged non payment of GST - non -filing of GSTR 3B returns for the period from October onwards - Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - HELD THAT - The applicant has not yet been made an accused. On the basis of the alleged statement given by Abdul Saleem, the applicant has allegedly dealt with the filing of returns of the Agency. He had allegedly made false invoices. But as of now, no concrete evidence sufficient either to implicate him as an accused or proceed against him has been collected. Admittedly, A.R Agencies is a proprietorship belonging to Rajoob. He alone is to answer for anything done by the agency. Applicant has nothing to do with the Agency and has not gained any income from that business. His Bank accounts are available for scrutiny, and the applicant is willing to cooperate by producing those documents. His custodial interrogation may not be necessary under the circumstances. The CGST officials had sufficient power to implicate the applicant in case they had the required materials with them. The fact that they have not arraigned him as an accused indicates lack of material. The applicant's apprehension of arrest is reasonable, because Abdul Saleem, who is also not a proprietor, has been arrested. It is settled position that the applicant apprehending arrest need not be made an accused in a crime to seek the relief of anticipatory bail. Its is sufficient in case he succeeds in establishing that his apprehension of arrest is reasonable - the applicant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. The bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to appear before the investigating officer within three weeks.
Issues:
- Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Interpretation of arrest provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. - Analysis of safeguards against abuse of arrest powers under the CGST Act. - Determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail based on the facts of the case. Issue 1: Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant sought anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest for alleged involvement in non-payment of GST and non-filing of returns. The applicant denied any connection with the agency in question, stating he had no business or GST registration. He argued that the incriminating materials found during the search were not linked to him. The court considered the lack of concrete evidence to implicate the applicant and granted anticipatory bail, directing him to cooperate with the investigation. Issue 2: Interpretation of arrest provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 132 of the CGST Act lists offences punishable by imprisonment and/or fine, categorizing them based on the amount involved. The Act empowers the Commissioner to authorize arrests for specific offences related to tax evasion. The provisions aim to balance the gravity of the offence with safeguards against abuse of arrest powers. The discretion to authorize arrest is limited to serious offences, with requirements to inform the arrested person of grounds and produce them before the Magistrate within 24 hours. Issue 3: Analysis of safeguards against abuse of arrest powers under the CGST Act The Act includes safeguards to prevent misuse of arrest powers, such as restricting arrests to specific offences involving tax evasion and setting monetary thresholds. The phrase "reason to believe" limits the Commissioner's discretion to authorize arrests, ensuring a rational connection with the formation of belief. The legislation aims to circumscribe discretionary powers and protect interests of revenue, with a process outlined for arrests and production before the Magistrate. Issue 4: Determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail based on the facts of the case The court analyzed the applicant's situation, noting that he had not been made an accused yet and lacked concrete evidence against him. The court emphasized that the applicant's apprehension of arrest was reasonable, considering the lack of material implicating him. The court granted anticipatory bail, directing the applicant to appear before the investigating officer, cooperate with the investigation, and adhere to specified conditions upon arrest. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the applicant's request for anticipatory bail in the context of the CGST Act's arrest provisions, emphasizing the need for a balance between preventing economic offences and safeguarding individual liberties. The court's decision hinged on the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant and the reasonableness of his apprehension of arrest, ultimately granting anticipatory bail with specified conditions.
|
