Page 131 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] ARVIND KUMAR MUNKA v. UNION OF INDIA 33
20% of evaded amount - Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sec-
tion 69 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [para 12]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Mukesh Jain v. CBI — (2010) 1 AD (Delhi) 443 — Referred ............................................................... [Para 11]
P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India — 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. J175 (S.C.) — Referred ...................... [Para 12]
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal — 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) — Referred ................. [Para 9]
State of Tamil Nadu v. S.A. Raja — 2006 (1) SCC (Cri.) 58 — Referred .............................................. [Para 8]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sekhar Basu, Rajdeep Mazumdar, Moyukh
Mukherjee and Ms. Arushi Rathore, for the
Petitioner.
Shri K.K. Maity, for the Respondent.
[Judgment]. - The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail under Sec-
tion 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as his earlier application being
CRM No. 10075 of 2019 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24-12-2019
[2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 29 (Cal.)]. The petitioner prayer for bail was lastly rejected by
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) vide
order dated 31-12-2019 which is evident from the Annexure-P1 being the orders.
The petitioner as I have been found in the earlier order that he is a Chartered Ac-
countant by profession and with the similar contention he has averred that he is
no way connected with the instant case. The petitioner has been arraigned as an
accused in this case under Section 69 read with Section 132(1) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the allegation that in connivance with the
other accused persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar Pandit, Nagendra Kumar Dubey
alias Sandip Dube, and Mr. Vijay Rajpuriya along with various other persons he
allegedly issued GST Invoices without any supply of the goods or services to an-
ybody on commission basis causing loss of more than 98 crores approximately.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 6-6-2019 and his
further detention is not warranted as the Charge-sheet has already been submit-
ted on completion of the investigation.
3. It is also submitted that the petitioner in no way responsible person
as no notice was issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and has been
falsely entangled in this case as he is neither a proprietor nor a person responsi-
ble for the running of any proprietary business.
4. Mr. Sekhar Basu Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated
that the prosecution has been lodged without the sanction of the Commissioner
which is absolutely contrary to mandates provided under Section 134 of CGST
Act as the Commissioner has only authorized the Investigating Officer to arrest
under Section 69 read with Section 132(1) of the CGST Act but has not granted
sanction under Section 134 of the CGST Act and as such the instant prosecution
is not maintainable.
5. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is now extremely sick and
suffering from severe chest pain and viral fever from long time and despite his
repeated request proper medical treatment was not provided by the authority,
despite knowing the fact that the petitioner has been hospitalized from 25th May,
2019 to 28th May, 2019 for proper medical care.

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  195