If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he is more than likely to hamper the investigation and/or tamper evidence which may likely to compromise with the entire investigation. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.
Section 69, 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Arrest — Bail-- The petitioner sought bail for the offences registered under Section 132(1) (i) of the Act, 2017. The Petitioner was arrested on 12. 07.2021. It is alleged that the Petitioner is found to have deliberately supplied goods without issuing invoices in violation of the provisions of Act. The total evasion detected inclusive of applicable Tax, Cess, Penalty and Interest is more than Rs. 22 Crores. He submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been followed by the Arresting Authorities. The Petitioner appeared before the authorities whenever he was directed to appear and he has not been convicted in any case. There is no chance of flight risk and that the petitioner did not manufacture any false invoices. In this case, no assessment whatsoever has been undertaken as regard to determination of tax, cess, penalty and interest by the Assessing Authority. The arrest is totally unlawful as the petitioner has been arrested under Section 69 of the for the offence punishable under Section 132(1) (a) of the said Act. The court observed that the provisions of section 69 are absolutely clear and unambiguous which provides that during the course of inspection, search and seizure when the Commissioner has reason to believe that the person has committed any offence as per the clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the subsection (1) of section 132, then he may pass an order authorizing an officer of the department to arrest such person. The evasion of tax is more than Rs. 5 crores which necessitated the arrest of the Petitioner in compliance of the provision of Section 132 (1) (i). The investigation of the case is still continuing. Moreover, if the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he is more than likely to hamper the investigation and/or tamper evidence which may likely to compromise with the entire investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.
If the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he is more than likely to hamper the investigation and/or tamper evidence which may likely to compromise with the entire investigation. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Petitioner at this stage.
Section 69, 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Arrest — Bail-- The petitioner sought bail for the offences registered under Section 132(1) (i) of the Act, 2017. The Petitioner was arrested on 12. 07.2021. It is alleged that the Petitioner is found to have deliberately supplied goods without issuing invoices in violation of the provisions of Act. The total evasion detected inclusive of applicable Tax, Cess, Penalty and Interest is more than Rs. 22 Crores. He submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 has not been followed by the Arresting Authorities. The Petitioner appeared before the authorities whenever he was directed to appear and he has not been convicted in any case. There is no chance of flight risk and that the petitioner did not manufacture any false invoices. In this case, no assessment whatsoever has been undertaken as regard to determination of tax, cess, penalty and interest by the Assessing Authority. The arrest is totally unlawful as the petitioner has been arrested under Section 69 of the for the offence punishable under Section 132(1) (a) of the said Act. The court observed that the provisions of section 69 are absolutely clear and unambiguous which provides that during the course of inspection, search and seizure when the Commissioner has reason to believe that the person has committed any offence as per the clauses (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the subsection (1) of section 132, then he may pass an order authorizing an officer of the department to arrest such person. The evasion of tax is more than Rs. 5 crores which necessitated the arrest of the Petitioner in compliance of the provision of Section 132 (1) (i). The investigation of the case is still continuing. Moreover, if the Petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, he is more than likely to hamper the investigation and/or tamper evidence which may likely to compromise with the entire investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the prayer for bail of the Petitioner.