2022 (5) TMI 31 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of second anticipatory bail - scams and GST evasion - HELD THAT - Counsel appearing for the respondents are ad idem that the petitioner despite being issued summons is not appearing. Considering the fact that there is no change of circumstances and it is the case of the department that the petitioner is not putting appearance, the second petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the second anticipatory bail application.
2. Petitioner's role as a registered informer and G-Card Holder.
3. Allegations of illegal consignment clearance and subsequent investigation.
4. Discrepancies between Customs and CGST Departments.
5. Decision to refer the matter to the CBI for further investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Second Anticipatory Bail Application:
The court reiterated that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable as the first application was dismissed on merits. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in "G.R. Ananda Babu vs State of Tamil Nadu and another," emphasizing that successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained, particularly when the accused is absconding and not cooperating with the investigation.

2. Petitioner's Role as a Registered Informer and G-Card Holder:
The petitioner claimed to be a registered informer for the General Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate (GST) and a G-Card Holder for the Department of Customs. The petitioner argued that he had helped in unearthing many scams and GST evasion cases, for which he had been awarded. The petitioner was also involved in handling customs clearances and had obtained various documents from Prabhjot Singh.

3. Allegations of Illegal Consignment Clearance and Subsequent Investigation:
The petitioner provided information to the GST Department about an illegally cleared consignment by the Customs Department. The consignment, when intercepted by the Preventive Wing of CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, was found to contain 39,60,000 cigarettes, 10030 kgs of iron scrap, and 04 alloy wheels. The petitioner expressed apprehension that he might face retaliation from the Customs Department, as the official responsible for the illegal clearance was now heading the Special Investigative Team.

4. Discrepancies Between Customs and CGST Departments:
The court noted the conflicting stands of the Customs and CGST Departments. The Customs Department alleged collusion between CGST officials and the petitioner, while the CGST Department presented the petitioner as a secret informer who had provided crucial information. The court found it surprising and concerning that the two departments were fighting over fixing liability instead of collaborating to resolve the issue.

5. Decision to Refer the Matter to the CBI for Further Investigation:
Given the discrepancies and the lack of cooperation between the Customs and CGST Departments, the court decided to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further investigation. The court ordered that an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit a report within 30 days. The petitioner and the respondents were directed to provide all relevant documents to the enquiry officer. The court also directed the Director Generals of Customs and CGST to ensure full cooperation with the CBI.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application due to lack of change in circumstances and the petitioner's non-cooperation with the investigation. The matter was referred to the CBI for a thorough investigation to determine the liability of the erring officials. The court emphasized the need for cooperation between the Customs and CGST Departments to resolve such issues efficiently.

← Previous Next →