JUDGMENT :

DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being DGGI/INV/CM/25/2022 registered with the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Rajkot of the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and (1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty assisted by learned advocate Mr. Apurva Mehta appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant-accused was arrested on 07.11.2023 and is in jail ever since. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty has also submitted that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has also been filed. It is submitted that the applicant is a proprietor of M/s. Remgold International duly registered under the CGST Act and is indulged in the business of trading and brokerage at Rajkot and is no way connected with the instant case and has been falsely arraigned as an accused on the allegation that the applicant in connivance with the other individually indicted accused persons had allegedly issued GST invoices without any supply of the goods to the buyers on commission basis causing loss of Rs. 33 crores and odd to the government exchequer.

2.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submits that on 29.04.2022 and 22.02.2023 the officials of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Rajkot Regional Unit, Rajkot (DGGI in short) carried out a search at the business premises of the applicant and also searched the residential premises of the applicant on 25.07.2022 and during the search procedure, full cooperation was extended by the applicant-accused by providing all the information as sought for by the DGGI. The documentary as well as electronic evidences have also been seized. Then, after closure of the search and seizure proceedings, the applicant-accused subpoenaed by the respondent Office under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as “CGST”) for recording of his statement. It is also submitted that, therefore, apprehending his arrest, the applicant preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which resulted in rejection. Dissatisfied with the order of rejection, the applicant approached this Court with an application seeking pre-arrest bail, which ultimately came to be withdrawn. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty would submit that meanwhile, the applicant-accused got arrested by the Bhavnagar Police in connection with some other offences and on the basis of transfer warrant, the respondent-authority got the custody of the applicant-accused. It is further submitted that the purpose of arrest, when the applicant was cooperating, poses a question regarding the malicious intent of the prosecuting authority because while rendering his cooperation, the applicant was coerced into signing several statements and documents by the investigators. It is pointed out that offences under Section 132 (1) (b) and 132(1)(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 provides for a maximum punishment for 5 years and is triable by the learned Magistrate of First Class. The applicant is in custody since 07.11.2023 and no further detention is warranted. He is not a responsible person either as a proprietor or a person responsible for the running of any proprietary concern and no notice was issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, seeking explanation from the applicant. It is moreso submitted that before making an arrest of a person, the authority ought to have followed the statutory procedure as provided under the CGST Act.

2.2 Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavaty submits that the applicant-accused is a reputed businessman and has nothing to do with the present offence. The applicant-accused himself shown willingness to appear before the authority for the purpose of recording of his statement. The applicant does not have any connection with the alleged bogus