9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1202 - HC - GSTSeeking Bail - Constitutional Validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act - declaring when to exercise the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act - seeking declaration that the arrest of the Petitioner is illegal - HELD THAT - The Division Bench passed this order relying on the order passed in the case of Akshay Chhabra V/s. Union of India Ors. 2023 (3) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Sunil Kumar Jha V/s. Union of India Ors. 2021 (3) TMI 541 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where it was held that the main prayer was for protection from arrest. Therefore, in light of the decision of the NAGPUR CABLE OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NAGPUR AND ORS. 1995 (8) TMI 342 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT decision, the petitions ought to have been filed as criminal writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that similar course of action as indicated in the case of Akshay Chhabra, be followed and the Petitioner be allowed to approach the concerned Court in respect of prayer of bail and be continued for some time and, as regard the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indirect Tax enactment is concerned, the same is not being pressed in the Petition. In the light of the course of action adopted in the case of Akshay Chhabra, the Writ Petition is disposed off directing that the bail granted in this Petition to continue for a period of six weeks to enable the Petitioner to approach the competent court - petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the following Issues: 1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. 2. Determination of when to exercise the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act. 3. Declaration of the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner. Issue 1: Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act: The petition sought a declaration that Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act are unconstitutional and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench released the Petitioner on bail and issued various directives, including executing a personal bond and furnishing surety. The order was based on previous cases challenging the same sections of the Act. The petitioners in these cases also sought a writ to restrain the Respondents from taking coercive actions against them. Issue 2: Determination of when to exercise the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act: The petitioners requested a writ declaring that the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised upon determination of liability and failure to make payments towards such liability. The Division Bench granted bail to the petitioners and directed them to cooperate in the investigation, not tamper with evidence, and deposit their passports. The order was consistent with previous cases challenging the same provision of the Act. Issue 3: Declaration of the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner: The petitioners also sought a writ declaring the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and requested to be enlarged on bail. The Division Bench, considering the circumstances and the nature of the petition, continued the interim order for six weeks to allow the Petitioners to take necessary steps. The Court emphasized the distinction between criminal and civil writ petitions and disposed of the case accordingly. Separate Judgment: In a similar case, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing that the bail granted to the Petitioner continue for a period of six weeks to enable them to approach the competent court. The Petitioner was allowed to seek bail and the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indirect Tax enactment was not pressed in the Petition. The Court followed the course of action adopted in a previous case involving a similar issue.
|
