2021 (9) TMI 550 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - summons was issued under Section 70 of the GST Act, 2017 and without giving an opportunity an enquiry was conducted on the same date - HELD THAT - Admittedly summons were issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the G.S.T Act, 2017 on 12.02.2021 and enquiry was conducted and after that at 18 10. hours on the same day he was arrested by issuing a arrest memo and he was remanded to Judicial custody on 13.02.2021. Now, the investigation is pending. Admittedly summons were issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the G.S.T Act, 2017 on 12.02.2021 and enquiry was conducted and after that at 18 10. hours on the same day he was arrested by issuing a arrest memo and he was remanded to Judicial custody on 13.02.2021. Now, the investigation is pending. There is no violation of law or civil procedure code and further regarding the authorization of arrest and enquiry is concerned, the learned special public prosecutor would submit that the copy of the authorization letter is submitted and the respondent police have also followed the mandatory procedures. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not accepted and the learned counsel himself admitted that the case has been registered only based on the confession statement. Therefore, when he admits that the summons were issued and enquiry was conducted there is incriminating materials to register the case and the admissibility and validity of the statement and whether the petitioner has involved in the case or not will be decided only after the investigation. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Petition dismissed.

Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Validity of arrest and detention under Sections 69, 70, and 132 of the GST Act.
3. Compliance with mandatory procedures under GST Act, 2017.
4. Authorization and legality of arrest and enquiry process.
5. Consideration of incriminating materials and confession statement.
6. Decision on granting bail based on prima facie material and specific overt act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for offenses under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the summons issued under Section 70 of the GST Act did not provide an opportunity for enquiry and that the arrest was illegal. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing lack of knowledge about GST and being falsely implicated. The respondent contended that the enquiry and arrest were conducted following due process of law, with valid authorization. The Court noted the summons, enquiry, and subsequent arrest, finding incriminating material based on the petitioner's statement during the enquiry.

2. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with procedures under Sections 69, 70, and 132 of the GST Act, stating that the arrest was an abuse of power. The respondent defended the legality of the arrest, stating that the petitioner's involvement in the offense was established through proper procedure. The Court emphasized that the investigation was pending, and the validity of the statement and the petitioner's involvement would be determined later. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of violation of civil procedure code and accepted the respondent's submission on following mandatory procedures.

3. The Court considered the legality of the arrest and enquiry, focusing on the authorization process and compliance with mandatory procedures. The respondent argued that all procedures were duly followed, including issuing summons, conducting enquiry, and obtaining statements from witnesses. The Court found no violation of law or civil procedure code in the arrest and enquiry process, emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner during the investigation.

4. The decision on granting bail hinged on the presence of prima facie material against the petitioner and the existence of a specific overt act. The Court noted that the case was registered based on the confession statement, and the final determination of the petitioner's involvement would occur after the investigation. As the investigation was ongoing, the Court declined to grant bail, emphasizing that the admissibility and validity of the statement would be crucial in deciding the petitioner's role in the case.

5. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the bail application, highlighting the need to await the investigation's outcome before determining the petitioner's culpability. The Court's decision was based on the presence of incriminating material, the validity of the confession statement, and the requirement to establish prima facie evidence against the petitioner. The order emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and awaiting the completion of the investigation for a comprehensive assessment of the case.

← Previous Next →