Page 65 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] GOVIND AGARWAL v. STATE OF U.P. 551
a few hours. It goes without saying that the person, who is in charge of
transportation, will have to necessarily cooperate with the Squad Officer for
preparing the relevant papers. [See Jeyyam Global Foods (P.) Ltd. v. Union of
India & Ors., (2019) 64 GSTR 129 (Mad.) - 2019-VIL-47-MAD]
7. From the perusal of the aforementioned findings, it is irresistibly
concluded that in case of a bona fide dispute with regard to the classification be-
tween a transitor of the goods and the squad officer, the squad officer may inter-
cept the goods and detain them for the purpose of preparing the relevant papers
for effective transmission to the judicial assessing officers and nothing beyond. In
the present case, it is a case of bona fide miscalculation as to whether the goods
would be exigible to 12% or 28%. The judgment cited in N.V.K Mohammed Sul-
than Rawtger’s case (supra) was also a case where the petitioner firm was a manu-
facturer of ‘Ground Betel Nuts (Arecanuts)’ and registered with the Tamil Nadu
under the Goods and Services Tax Act. The goods were intercepted by the in-
specting authority to be in contravention of the misbranding. By relying upon the
decision in J.K Synthetics Limited v. Commercial Taxes Officer, 1994 (4) SCC 276, it
was held that the charging provisions must be construed strictly but not the ma-
chinery provisions which would be construed like any other statute.
8. The upshot of the reasoning aforementioned is that the impugned
order of detention Ext.P3(c) and consequential notices are not sustainable and
hereby quashed. The goods are directed to be released to the petitioner with a
further direction that the inspecting authority of Kerala would prepare a report
and submit the same to the assessing authority Karnataka for taking action, if
deem it appropriate, in accordance with law.
_______
2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 551 (All.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.
GOVIND AGARWAL
Versus
STATE OF U.P.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CR.P.C. No. 1337 of 2020,
decided on 7-2-2020
Bail - Anticipatory bail - Grant of CGST/SGST - Business run from
bogus address - Huge transaction done without reflecting in account of firm -
HELD : Considering gravity of accusation and possibility of accused fleeing
from justice, it was not fit case to grant anticipatory bail - Accused plea that
notice was required before lodging FIR rejected as offence were alleged to be
committed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Also, it was case of economic fraud where stay is not granted against
arrest as investigation might require custodial interrogation. [paras 14, 15]
Application rejected
CASES CITED
Akhil Krishan Maggu v. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence
— 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 516 (P & H) — Referred ............................................................................. [Para 11]
Chitra Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
— 2013 (31) S.T.R. 515 (Mad.) — Referred .................................................................................... [Para 8]
GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  65