2024 (7) TMI 675 - SCH - GST

Grant of anticipatory bail - person summoned under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for the purpose of recording of his statement - HELD THAT - The High Court committed no error in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If any writ petition is filed in the High Court, the same may be considered in accordance with law - SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Cancellation of anticipatory bail based on High Court order and Supreme Court dictum, applicability of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, granting liberty to petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, protection of petitioner from arrest for six weeks, disposal of Special Leave Petition and pending applications.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, and others. The Court observed that the High Court had cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the trial court based on a previous Supreme Court order in SLP (Crl) No 4212-4213 of 2019. In that order, the Supreme Court had ruled that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked if a person is summoned under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 for recording a statement.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the anticipatory bail but granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the concerned High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also decided to protect the petitioner from arrest for a period of six weeks starting from the date of the judgment. The Court directed that if a writ petition is filed in the High Court, it should be considered in accordance with the law, and during the six-week period, there should be no arrest of the petitioner.

Finally, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court, and any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. The judgment provided a balanced approach by affirming the cancellation of anticipatory bail while allowing the petitioner the opportunity to seek relief through the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and ensuring protection from arrest for a specified period.