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 of the offences under the CGST Act.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") seeking anticipatory bail in a matter pertaining to Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereafter referred to as the "CGST Act") in File Number DZU/INV/A/GST/894/2021. Another Application bearing CRL. M.A.-16552/2021 has also been filed before this Court under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code seeking ad-interim protection from coercive action that might be taken by the Respondent during the pendency of the Anticipatory Bail Application.

2. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is essential to highlight the factual background of the matter.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The petitioner is one of the directors in M/S Jetibai Grandsons Services India Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter, referred to as "Company"), a company incorporated in August 2019. The company was initially involved in the supply of services however, it subsequently started manufacturing and supplying solar inverters, solar power generating units and like products.

4. The respondent has alleged that the Company of which the petitioner is a director, along with other firms namely M/s Microlyte Energy (P) Limited, M/s Sun Automation Limited, M/s Urja Global Limited and M/s NYX Industry India (P) Ltd. are involved in fraudulently availing and passing on ineligible/fake Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.72,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Crores).

5. The respondent has alleged that the Company made most of its purchases from three firms namely - M/s Microlyte Energy (P) Limited, M/s Sun Automation Limited, and M/s Urja Global Limited. It has been alleged that these three firms further received these goods from various firms, most of which have been found to be non-existent at their official addresses and had no inward supplies. The respondent has thus alleged that these firms have availed the ineligible Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.72,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Two Crores) and fraudulently passed on the same to the Company within a short span of five months from November 2020 to March 2021.

6. Based on the above analysis of the respondent, several summons had been issued to the petitioner in order to give evidence and record his statement. The first among these were issued on 21st July, 2021 directing the petitioner to appear before the department on 26th July, 2021 for the aforesaid purpose. It is stated by the petitioner that he could not attend the same because of this mother's illness.

7. Another summons dated 27th July, 2021 was issued to the petitioner to appear in person and to produce certain documents in relation to alleged wrongful utilization of the Input Tax Credit. On 5th August, 2021, the Petitioner submitted the required documents, however he failed to appear to tender his statement citing personal difficulty.

8. The failure of the petitioner to appear in person on these occasions led the respondent to issue another summons dated 7th August, 2021 for the third time. This time, the summons was issued for directing the petitioner to appear in person for the purpose of tendering statement and for providing details of purchase and sales transactions. The petitioner tendered reply to the summons via letter dated 12th August, 2021, expressing his incapacity to appear in person due to his medical condition. In reply to the same, the petitioner also reiterated that the documents as requested were already submitted with the respondent.

9. Similar summons were again issued on 18th August, 2021 which solicited a similar reply via letter dated 24th August, 2021 again citing medical problems. Thereafter, summons were issued on 1st September, 2021 inter alia directing the petitioner to appear and tender his statement. Petitioner submitted a request via letter dated 8th September, 2021 for the presence of the co