Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017--- Anticipatory Bail —- The petitioners prayed for Anticipatory bail. The counsel for the department submitted that bail application is premature inasmuch as they have never been summoned for participating in the investigation and that the investigation in the present case is at the threshold. The counsel for the applicants stated that the department has taken two contrary stands, as there is a claim that the applicants were never summoned and were not part of the investigation and at the same time claimed that applicants have engaged themselves in utilization of fraudulently generated ITC and which is a cognizable and nonbailable offence. The applicant is not a flyby night entity and is Director of an MSME which employs more than 250 employees and has substantial turnover. The counsel relied upon the decision in the matter of Tarun Jain Vs. DGGI. The court observed that present case is covered by the judgment of Sh. Tarun Jain. Further, evidence in the present case is also documentary. 

Held that:- The Hon’ble Court allowed the application subject to certain conditions.