Continuing detention of the petitioner may not at all be justified. This court directed that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail –Proper Reasonable Belief must for Arrest-- The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of section 132(1) (b) of the Act and sought a declaration that the power under section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised upon determination of the liability. A further prayer has been made to restrain respondent from filing any criminal complaint against the petitioner for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act which are compoundable offences. An interim prayer has been made for enlarging the petitioner on bail since he is under judicial custody with effect from 21.01.2021. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and is accused that his companies had fraudulently availed and utilized ineligible ITC amounting to Rs. 122.59 crores approximately on the strength of bogus invoices without actual receipt of goods or services. The respondent counsel submitted that under sections 69 and 132, the power to arrest by the revenue officials under the aforesaid provisions has been conceded by the Parliament in the larger interest of the society, both adjudicatory process and prosecution in the case of alleged tax evasion can go on simultaneously. It is not necessary that the demand has to be first quantified after an adjudicatory process and thereafter resort can be taken to for arresting the person concerned or those involved in evasion of tax. The court observed that requirement under sub-section (1) of section 69 is to have reasons to believe that not only a person has committed any offence as specified but also as to why such person needs to be arrested. The reasons recorded by the respondent the court observed that no concrete incident has been mentioned therein recording any act of tampering of evidence by the petitioner or threatening / inducing any witness besides not co-operating with the investigation, not to speak of fleeing from investigation. Thus the respondent could not have formed a reason to believe that the petitioner should be arrested. Further, continuing the detention of the petitioner may not at all be justified.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. Stand over to 20.04.2021.
Continuing detention of the petitioner may not at all be justified. This court directed that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail –Proper Reasonable Belief must for Arrest-- The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of section 132(1) (b) of the Act and sought a declaration that the power under section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised upon determination of the liability. A further prayer has been made to restrain respondent from filing any criminal complaint against the petitioner for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act which are compoundable offences. An interim prayer has been made for enlarging the petitioner on bail since he is under judicial custody with effect from 21.01.2021. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and is accused that his companies had fraudulently availed and utilized ineligible ITC amounting to Rs. 122.59 crores approximately on the strength of bogus invoices without actual receipt of goods or services. The respondent counsel submitted that under sections 69 and 132, the power to arrest by the revenue officials under the aforesaid provisions has been conceded by the Parliament in the larger interest of the society, both adjudicatory process and prosecution in the case of alleged tax evasion can go on simultaneously. It is not necessary that the demand has to be first quantified after an adjudicatory process and thereafter resort can be taken to for arresting the person concerned or those involved in evasion of tax. The court observed that requirement under sub-section (1) of section 69 is to have reasons to believe that not only a person has committed any offence as specified but also as to why such person needs to be arrested. The reasons recorded by the respondent the court observed that no concrete incident has been mentioned therein recording any act of tampering of evidence by the petitioner or threatening / inducing any witness besides not co-operating with the investigation, not to speak of fleeing from investigation. Thus the respondent could not have formed a reason to believe that the petitioner should be arrested. Further, continuing the detention of the petitioner may not at all be justified.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions. Stand over to 20.04.2021.