9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the authorities despite repeated summons being issued to them and had filed an application seeking anticipatory bail. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. In the present case, it has rightly been contended on behalf of Jitender Kumar that one of the co-accused persons, Manish Goyal, was arrested by the DGGI and therefore, there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. From the material on record, it appears that Jitender Kumar was not the main player involved in the GST fraud and was acting on instructions from the main accused Chirag Goel and Chaman Goel. It is the case of the DGGI itself that out of the receipt of GST refund of Rs.198 crores by M/s Harsha International, Rs.195 crores wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g aside of the order dated 24th April, 2023, whereby the learned ASJ has dismissed the petition filed on behalf of the DGGI seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2023. 3. Brief facts, as agitated by the DGGI, are as follows: 3.1 The officers of DRI Gandhidham and DGGI, acting on intelligence, intercepted 21 containers carrying smoking mixtures from Mundra Port, Gujarat on 3rd October, 2022. The samples taken therefrom were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), Kandla, wherein it was revealed that the aforesaid smoking mixture was a spurious product and not fit for human consumption. 3.2 Investigation was started and summons were issued to the exporter company, M/s Harsha I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned ASJ, which was granted vide order dated 2nd February, 2023. 3.9 The DGGI moved an application before the Sessions Court, seeking cancellation of the aforesaid anticipatory bail on the grounds of violation of the conditions mentioned therein, which was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 24th April, 2023. 4. Senior Standing Counsels appearing on behalf of the DGGI have made the following submissions: I. The Sessions Court could not have granted anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar in view of the recent order dated 17th July, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 4212- 4213 of 2019 titled State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, wherein it was observed that provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Crimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsons were only summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act and there was no apprehension of arrest. However, in the present case, one of the co-accused Manish Goyal had already been arrested and therefore there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. Further, the order in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) was delivered after the grant of anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar and cannot have retrospective operation. II. The impugned judgment clearly records and correctly so, that the CRLC Report was inconclusive due to lack of testing facility and it has not been proved that the seized products were not made from cigarettes. III. The GST payable on purchase of cigarettes was duly paid by the accused persons and it is not the case of the DGGI t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e circumstances that the Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. 9. In the present case, it has rightly been contended on behalf of Jitender Kumar that one of the co-accused persons, Manish Goyal, was arrested by the DGGI and therefore, there was a genuine apprehension of arrest. 10. Further, the order in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) was delivered on 17th July, 2023, which is subsequent to the order dated 2nd February, 2023 passed by the learned ASJ granting anticipatory bail to Jitender Kumar. I find merit in the submission of the counsel appearing for Jitender Kumar that Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer (supra) cannot have retrospective operation. 11. In any event, while considering the present petitions, this Court can exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 70 of CGST Act was recorded. Hence, I do not agree with the aforesaid submission of the DGGI that Jitender Kumar has not joined investigation. 16. It has been strongly urged on behalf of the DGGI that the bail granted to Jitender Kumar should be cancelled as he did not deposit his passport with the Investigation Officer (IO). This contention of the DGGI has been rightly rejected by the learned ASJ in his order dated 24th April, 2023 by observing that the passport of Jitender Kumar had expired in 1998 and thereafter was never renewed. The DGGI was not able to rebut the aforesaid submission. 17. As regards the contention of the DGGI that Jitender Kumar has violated the condition relating to leaving NCR without informing the IO, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
