2025-VIL-1349-KAR

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Anticipatory bail, Wrongful utilisation of input tax credit, offences under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 – The DGGI issued multiple summons to the petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail - Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the CGST Act considering the nature and gravity of the offence - HELD - There is no embargo under the CGST Act restraining the petitioner from seeking pre-arrest bail. While it is imperative to maintain law and order in society, the power to arrest must also always be subject to necessary safeguards - As per the scheme of the CGST Act, though the offence is of economic nature yet the punishment prescribed cannot be ignored to determine the heinousness of the offence. The offences under the CGST Act, though categorized as economic offences, are not as grave as offences under other special statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The maximum punishment prescribed under the CGST Act for the alleged offences is imprisonment for five years and fine, which is not a heinous offence. Further, the offences under the CGST Act are compoundable under Section 138, except for certain specified offences - The custodial interrogation in the instant matter is neither warranted nor provided for by the statute. Detaining the petitioner in judicial custody would serve no purpose rather would adversely impact the business of the petitioner. Accordingly, anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to certain conditions to ensure his cooperation in the investigation and to prevent him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – The petition is allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page