Present application seeking anticipatory bail merely on the basis of apprehension and taking this apprehension into consideration. Application is premature and is not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly application is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Anticipatory Bail —–The applicant sought anticipatory bail on the basis of apprehension that earlier summons were issued to one of the Directors of a company and in pursuance of said summons dated 21.1.2021 the concerned Director who had approached the authorities was arrested. The applicant counsel submitted that proceedings have been initiated under section 74 and for such determination no proceedings can be undertaken to arrest the applicant in terms of the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Act. The respondent counsel submitted that summons have been issued invoking authority under Section 70 for the purpose to enable a party to give evidence. Merely summoning of one of the Directors of the purchaser company cannot be construed to be an intention on the part of the summoning authority to arrest the Director. The power to summon is not equivalent to arrest or punish and power of arrest is to be exercised only after determination of the liability in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. The court observed that anticipatory bail application is premature.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application.
Present application seeking anticipatory bail merely on the basis of apprehension and taking this apprehension into consideration. Application is premature and is not maintainable at this stage. Accordingly application is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Anticipatory Bail —–The applicant sought anticipatory bail on the basis of apprehension that earlier summons were issued to one of the Directors of a company and in pursuance of said summons dated 21.1.2021 the concerned Director who had approached the authorities was arrested. The applicant counsel submitted that proceedings have been initiated under section 74 and for such determination no proceedings can be undertaken to arrest the applicant in terms of the provisions contained in Section 69 of the Act. The respondent counsel submitted that summons have been issued invoking authority under Section 70 for the purpose to enable a party to give evidence. Merely summoning of one of the Directors of the purchaser company cannot be construed to be an intention on the part of the summoning authority to arrest the Director. The power to summon is not equivalent to arrest or punish and power of arrest is to be exercised only after determination of the liability in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. The court observed that anticipatory bail application is premature.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the application.