9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1352 - HC - GSTDirection to Respondent to not arrest the Petitioner in relation to the summons - power to arrest - HELD THAT - The bare perusal of the Section 69 of the CGST makes it clear that there are sufficient inherent safeguards contained in Section 69 prior to the affecting arrest of the accused persons. The legislature in its wisdom has made it mandatory that before affecting the arrest of the accused, the commissioner should have reasons to be believe that a person has committed an offence under Section 132 of the CGST, it further provides that the officer authorized to arrest the person shall inform such person the ground of arrest. Section 69 which is akin to Section 19 of PMLA has inherent safeguards before affecting the arrest of accused persons. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the judgment of The State of Gujrat Etc. 2023 (7) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT , no relief can be granted in the present petition to the petitioner. The relief as stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was granted by the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. The Court has also taken into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the department that as of now, the department has not even moved a file for effecting the arrest of the accused and there is no apprehension - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of a writ petition seeking protection against arrest under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Issue 1: Writ of Mandamus for Protection Against Arrest The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent arrest in relation to summons under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the summons were not served, and they are cooperating with the investigation. The respondent contended that the petition is not maintainable as per the Supreme Court's ruling in The State of Gujrat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer. The respondent argued that the petitioner's application is premature as there is no immediate threat of arrest, and the department has not moved to effect an arrest. The court noted the safeguards in Section 69 of the CGST Act and dismissed the petition based on the lack of immediate apprehension of arrest. Key Points: - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent arrest under the CGST Act. - The respondent argued the petition is not maintainable based on a Supreme Court ruling. - The court considered the safeguards in Section 69 before affecting an arrest. - The petition was dismissed due to the absence of immediate apprehension of arrest.
|
