2024 (10) TMI 1297 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - On going through the material placed on record but without meaning to make any comment on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed keeping in view the fact that the investigation has been completed, a complaint has been filed and the trial has commenced and the petitioner, whose arrest has been stayed on 16.12.2020, has not misused the same. The petitioner is granted concession of anticipatory in the aforesaid complaint, subject to furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further subject to the compliance of conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.

Issues:
1. Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an investigation under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Challenge to the vires of Section 69 and 132 of The Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
3. Consideration of the petitioner's apprehension of arrest and the need for anticipatory bail.
4. Arguments regarding the petitioner's involvement in GST evasion cases and the legality of granting anticipatory bail.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in an investigation under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had been earlier arrested and granted interim bail. The petitioner challenged the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the Act, arguing that the criminal trial and arrest under these sections lacked jurisdiction and constitutional backing. The Division Bench issued a notice of motion, highlighting the constitutional provisions related to the power to legislate on offences. The petitioner's counsel argued for anticipatory bail, citing previous instances and the need to cooperate in the investigation.

2. The challenge to the vires of Section 69 and 132 of The Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, was based on the argument that arrest and prescription of sentence were not covered under ancillary or incidental matters of the power to levy tax. The petitioner contended that the criminal trial for offences under Section 132 and the arrest under Section 69 lacked jurisdiction and constitutional support. The court found merit in the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the constitutional provisions and issued a notice of motion for further consideration.

3. The petitioner expressed apprehension of arrest due to subsequent events following the disposal of a writ petition by the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for interim protection to avoid arrest. The court considered the circumstances, including the petitioner's willingness to cooperate in the investigation, and granted interim bail subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the competent authority on a specified date.

4. The Additional Solicitor General argued against granting anticipatory bail, citing the petitioner's alleged involvement in multiple cases of GST evasion. The department claimed the petitioner was a habitual offender with serious allegations amounting to evasion of over Rs.87.00 crores. The petitioner's counsel countered these arguments, highlighting the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation and the explanation regarding the purchase and sale of goods. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the competent authority and granted anticipatory bail considering the completion of the investigation and commencement of trial, with no objection from the respondent.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and decisions made by the court in the case.

← Previous Next →