Page 82 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

448 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
manded to judicial custody, after his production before Magistrate in case peti-
tioner arrested - Taking into account present COVID-19 situation, petitioner
may be put to hardship and definitely, his health would likely to affect -
Offences, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life - Also, no statu-
tory bar in Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for granting anticipatory
bail by exercising power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Mere issuance of number of notices/issuance of summons to respondent
during lockdown for COVID-19, not to be ground to reject bail petition - No
prejudice to be caused to respondent if anticipatory bail granted - Petitioner to
be enlarged on bail in event of arrest under Section 69 of Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 after enquiry under Section 70 ibid - Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [para 17]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Avinash Aradhya v. Commissioner — 2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 168 (Kar.) — Relied on ................... [Paras 7, 12]
Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited
— (2019) 4 SCC 376 — Relied on ............................................................................................. [Paras 7, 10]
Mahendra Kumar Singhi v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax
— 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 721 (Kar.) — Relied on .............................................................................. [Para 12]
Meghraj Moolchand Burad (Jain) v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence
— 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. J82 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................................................... [Para 12]
Meghraj Moolchand Burad v. Directorate General, GST (Intelligence)
— 2019 (21) G.S.T.L. 125 (Bom.) — Referred ......................................................................... [Paras 7, 12]
P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India
— 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 185 (Telangana) — Referred .................................................. [Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10]
P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India — 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. J175 (S.C.) — Referred ....... [Paras 3, 6, 7, 10]
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra — (2011) 1 SCC 694 — Relied on ........ [Para 12]
Union of India v. Sapna Jain — S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos. 4322-4324 of 2019,
decided on 29-5-2019 by Supreme Court — Relied on .........................................[Paras 3, 6, 9, 11, 12]
REPRESENTED BY : Smt. Veena J. Kamath for M/s. Kamath and Kamath,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, SPP, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipa-
tory bail. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent had issued no-
tice/summons to the petitioner as per Section 70 of the Central Goods and Ser-
vices Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) summoning him to appear before
the Authorized Officer finally on 12-5-2020 (before filing the petition and after
filing the petition, another summon has been issued). Further contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Om Traders, regis-
tered dealer under the provisions of the CGST Act and the SGST at Shivamogga,
dealing in both ferrous and non-ferrous scrap. During his regular course of busi-
ness, he has purchased goods from various registered and unregistered dealers
and issued tax invoices as per law. He has collected the taxes and remitted to the
Government as per the CGST and the SGST Act.
2. Further, it is contended that on 8-2-2020, the respondent has issued a
summon to appear before an Officer by name D. Bhaskar at 3:15 p.m., and prior
to that on the same day, the respondent has conducted inspection of the business
premises and drawn a mahazar. Another notice issued by the respondent to ap-
pear before K. Venumadhava Reddy on 10-2-2020. The petitioner is ready to ap-
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  82