2022 (7) TMI 295 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - neither any amount was deposited nor any GST returns were filed properly by the company in which the applicant is the Director - HELD THAT - Undisputedly the applicant was running event management company under the name and style of M/s salt Experience Management Pvt Ltd. The inquiry officer under GST Act asked him to appear before him along with tender statement, purchased sale invoices for the period July 2017 onwards. In response to said notice, the applicant instead of complying with the directions and cooperating, opted to file this pre arrest bail application. The respondents in their reply stated that for affecting the arrest of anybody for offences punishable under Section CGST Act, 2017, written approval of the Principal Additional Director General is required. So far there is not even such proposal, what to speak of approval of the Principal Additional Director General. According to respondents, in such circumstances, the application is pre-mature and not maintainable. Reply of respondents clearly indicates that at present they have no intention to arrest the accused. In the obtaining circumstances, this court is of the view that application moved by applicant-accused is pre-mature and he should respond to the notice dated 24.05.2022 as a law abiding citizen having faith in the rule of law - this court is of the opinion that in such like cases at this stage concession of bail can not be granted. Course of legitimate inquiry cannot be hampered. Hence, the present bail application moved by petitioner-applicant is dismissed being pre-matured.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C in summons under Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application
The applicant, a Director of an event management company, sought anticipatory bail due to a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The company had allegedly not deposited amounts or filed GST returns properly. The respondent contended that the bail application was premature as the investigation was at an initial stage and the fear of arrest was based on presumption.

Issue 2: Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail
The respondent argued that the application for anticipatory bail was premature and not maintainable. They highlighted discrepancies in tax credit availed by the company and emphasized the applicant's non-cooperative attitude towards providing necessary information to the GST Department.

Issue 3: Legal Arguments
The applicant's counsel argued that anticipatory bail was permissible even in cases where there was an apprehension of loss of life and liberty. They cited relevant case laws to support their contention. In response, the respondent's counsel emphasized the applicant's statutory obligation to cooperate with the GST Department and argued against granting anticipatory bail.

Issue 4: Court's Decision
The court considered the arguments presented by both sides and examined the facts of the case. It noted that the applicant chose to file a pre-arrest bail application instead of complying with the directions of the inquiry officer. The court observed that there was no current intention to arrest the accused, as written approval from the Principal Additional Director General was required for such actions.

Issue 5: Prematurity of Application
The court concluded that the anticipatory bail application was premature and dismissed it, directing the applicant to respond to the notice as a law-abiding citizen. It emphasized that the legitimate inquiry process should not be hampered, and bail could not be granted at this stage. The court clarified that its decision did not reflect on the case's merits during the trial.

In summary, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application as premature, highlighting the applicant's obligation to cooperate with the authorities and respond to the notice. The decision underscored the importance of following due legal procedures and ensuring that the course of inquiry was not disrupted, without making any judgment on the case's merits.