9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 107 - HC - GSTRelease on Bail - Jurisdiction - power to arrest - whether without following the mandate contained in Section 74 of the Central Good and Service Tax Act, whether respondent no.4 is empowered to arrest the petitioner when the proceedings under Section 74 have not been culminated in an order and when it is not concluded? HELD THAT - Petitioner was arrested on 21st February 2019. As of today, 57 days are over since his arrest and otherwise also, in view of the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he will be entitled to be released on default bail after completion of 60 days if the charge-sheet is not filed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is not in a position to make any positive statement in this regard whether the charge-sheet would be filed in next three days. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the sum of ₹ 50,000/with one surety in like amount on the condition to report to the office of respondent no.2 on every alternate day or as and when summoned for the purpose of investigation by the said authority. He would also render full assistance and cooperation in the process of investigation - application disposed off.
Issues:
- Petition seeking direction to follow Code of Criminal Procedure before taking action against petitioner - Repeal of Service Tax Act and replacement by Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Provisions of Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act - Comparison between Section 74 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act and Section 73A of Service Tax Act - Legality of arrest without following Section 74 procedures - Delhi High Court's decision on arrest procedures - Bail relief for the petitioner Analysis: 1. The petition filed sought direction for respondent no.2 to adhere to the Code of Criminal Procedure before taking any further action against the petitioner related to a specific case. The petition was later amended to include additional grounds for relief, including seeking bail for the petitioner. 2. The judgment discussed the repeal of the Service Tax Act and its replacement by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act in 2017. It highlighted the similarity in wording between Section 73A of the Service Tax Act and Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which deal with tax determination and procedures. 3. Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was analyzed in comparison to Section 91 of the Service Tax Act, emphasizing the provisions related to punishment for specific offenses, including issues with invoices and availing input tax credit. 4. The judgment delved into the similarities between Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and Section 73A of the Service Tax Act, outlining the procedure for tax determination, interest, and penalties, emphasizing the importance of issuing notices and providing opportunities to the person chargeable with tax. 5. The legality of arresting the petitioner without following the mandate of Section 74 procedures was a crucial issue. The judgment referenced a Delhi High Court decision and a subsequent Supreme Court confirmation regarding the cautious use of arrest powers and the necessity to complete investigations before taking coercive measures. 6. The court granted bail relief to the petitioner, considering the period of arrest and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail with specific conditions, including reporting to the investigating authority and providing cooperation during the investigation process. This comprehensive analysis covers the various legal issues addressed in the judgment, including procedural requirements, arrest legality, and the grant of bail relief to the petitioner.
|
