Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G. UMA, J.
Sri.Praveen Suvarna - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Commissioner Of Central Excise And GST – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.8033 of 2020
Decided On : 16-09-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 69, 132(1) and 132(4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act, which deals with offences and penalties for contravention of the Act. The court also referred to Section 69, which empowers the Commissioner to authorize the arrest of a person for committing an offence under Section 132. The court's decision was influenced by the seriousness of economic offences, the need for thorough investigation, and the duty of the respondent to enforce the provisions of the CGST Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a transport business proprietor, sought anticipatory bail contending that a raid conducted by the respondent was politically motivated and aimed at disrupting his business. The respondent alleged the petitioner's involvement in illegal transportation of goods and evasion of tax, leading to a search of his premises and seizure of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's conduct of evading cooperation with the investigating officer and the seriousness of the economic offences alleged against him warranted thorough investigation, and thus, denied the grant of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. considering the allegations of economic offences and evasion of tax under the CGST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the seriousness of economic offences, the need for thorough investigation, and the duty of the respondent to enforce the provisions of the CGST Act. The court also considered the petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigating officer as a factor in denying anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to such relief in light of the allegations and the need for thorough investigation.
ORDER :
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail and to release him on bail in the event of his arrest by the Commissioner of Central Excise and GST in Proceeding No.CBIC-DIN-20201157YZ0000777F65 under Sections 69, Clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of Section 132(1) and as per Section 132(4) and Clause (a), (b), (c) or (d) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that, the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s Vigneshwara Transport Company, involved in transport business has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail contending that the respondent held raid simultaneously in three places belonging to the petitioner, on 28.11.2020 at 7.30 a.m. The said raid was politically motivated to wreck vengeance on the petitioner. The respondent had not followed the procedure as contemplated under law for holding such raid, but they acted rudely, harassed the petitioner and his team. They indulged in aggressive and physical abuse. The nephew of the petitioner by name Sachin Amin was illegally detained and was taken away by the respondent-officers to an unknown location. They have ransacked the petitioner’s house and seized the same after affixing summons under Section 70(1) of the CGST Act, calling upon the petitioner to be present before the respondent at 10.00 a.m. on 01.12.2020. The petitioner was also called upon to carry along with him the copies of invoices/bills from July 2017 till date, copies of balance sheet for the years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 and copies of the agreement/contract.
3. It is stated that the petitioner is paying income tax regularly and the raid held on 28.11.2020 is only with an intention to disrupt the normal life of the petitioner in carrying on his business. It is stated that the petitioner is having in all 13 vehicles to carry on his business. The vehicles were purchased by obtaining loan from various banks. The bank statements, income tax returns and other relevant documents are available in the public domain and the respondent could easily access to all those documents. The petitioner was not required to be summoned to appear before the respondent to produce those documents. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that summoning him by the respondent is only with an ulterior motive to tease and harass him.
4. It is contended that the petitioner has reason to believe that he may be apprehended on accusation of committing the offence under Section 132(5) of the Act which is non-bailable in nature. As per section 69(1) of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is empowered to authorize any officer of Central Tax to arrest a person, if he has reason to believe that such person committed the offence under Section 132 of CGST Act. Therefore, the petitioner is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested and detained in custody by making false allegations, if he appears before the respondent without a pre-arrest protection. Accordingly, he moved the petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
5. Heard Sri.Mohammed Akhil Nazeer, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Amit Deshpande, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner re-iterated his contention as stated above and contended that the conduct of the respondent in holding raid on the premises belonging to the petitioner, sealing it without any reasons and summoning the petitioner to appear before him is apparently motivated and without any reasonable cause. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court and cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation. He further submitted that the premises belonging to the petitioner is already raided and all the relevant documents are already taken away by the respondent. Under such circu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that economic offences, especially those related to tax evasion under the CGST Act, are considered serious and require a different approach in the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions, considering the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution and the nature ....
Anticipatory bail granted despite serious economic offence allegations, emphasizing the principle of 'bail not jail' and the need for case-specific evaluation while ensuring compliance with investiga....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous permission from the Commissioner to prosecute under the GST Act and the discretion of the court in granting anticipator....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
