9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate ORDER MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the investigation conducted by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram alleging commission of offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Vide order dated 16.12.2020, the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the summons was stayed by this Court by passing the following order: Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the summons issued by the respondent authorities. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was earlier arrested in some proceedings and remained in custody for about 02 months and was granted interim bail vide order dated 23.01.2020 passed in CRM-M-2140-2020. Learned senior counsel has referred to the complaint (Annexure P-5), in which the petitioner was granted interim bail, to argue that the period relating to evasion/fraud, as alleged by the respondent authorities, was relating to September, 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence are neither covered under ancillary nor incidental matters. The provision for arrest or sentence for an offence against the law may be inserted in any enactment, if permitted by the Constitution. The contention is sought to be fortified with the cited entries of Schedule VII and different Articles of the Constitution i.e. (i) Entry 93 of Union List and 64 of State List specifically empowers Legislature to make law for offences against laws with respect to any of the matters in the Union/State List. Thus Union and State Legislature while introducing any enactment in exercise of powers conferred by the entries of Union/State Lists in Schedule VII gets the power to insert provisions for offences. (ii) sub clause (i) of clause 2 of Article 323-B authorises legislature to make law for offences with respect to any matter specified in sub clause (a) to (h), whereas sub clause (j) authorises to make law with respect to any matter incidental to matters specified in sub clause (a) to (i), thereby establishing the power to legislate regarding the offences as not an incidental power. (iii) sub clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Article 35 empowers Parliament to prescribe punishment for those ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 27.08.2020 passed in CRM-M-24669-2020, wherein a similarly situated person has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail and following order has been passed: - Petitioner, in the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 70 of the Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the 'Act'). Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the summons (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act, he is apprehending arrest. It is contended that under Section 69, the Commissioner has the power to order arrest where he has reasons to believe that such a person has committed the offence specified under Section 132 (a) to (d). The said offences are punishable under Subsection (1) (i) to (iv) of Section (1) and (2) of Section 132 the Act. It is, accordingly, submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 132, if the input tax credit of over Rs.5 crores has wrongly been availed or utilized, the offence would become cognizable and non-bailable under Section 132(5) and in such circumstances, the petitioner apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence, as the summons do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not disclosed in this petition, though it is referred to by learned senior counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. Learned Additional Solicitor General has further submitted that summons were issued first time on 18.02.2020 and the petitioner is evading joining the investigation/inquiry. Both the sides have also opted to cite number of judgments running into hundred of pages, whether the anticipatory bail, in such circumstances, is maintainable or not and the Court finds that it is not possible to go through all the judgments through virtual hearing and the same will be considered on next hearing. In reply, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no explanation on behalf of the prosecuting agency as to why the petitioner is being repeatedly involved in different complaints pertaining to same period. It is further submitted that admitted facts are that the petitioner has purchased goods i.e. cigarettes on payment of applicable taxes and took Input Tax Credit (ITC) of paid tax at the time of purchasing of cigarettes and was utilizing it for the sale of cigarettes. The petitioner had sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
