Page 83 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ]HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAKSHMANA v. STATE, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE 449
pear before the respondent and co-operate with the investigation. However, the
respondent has already collected all the documents and completed their investi-
gation and the petitioner has apprehended his arrest in the hands of the re-
spondent for the offence punishable under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act. In
case, if he is arrested and sent to judicial custody, he will be put into hardship
and irreparable loss as he is having an old age mother and also a daughter and
due to COVID-19 lockdown situation, his heath may affect. Even though, he has
not committed any offence, there is likelihood of his arrest for the non-bailable
offence. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. The of-
fence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to offer
any surety. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.
3. Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, Learned Special Public Prosecutor, has filed
written objections contending that the petitioner is an assessee under the CGST
Act. Intelligence has been developed by the Officers of the respondent that the
petitioner was engaged in availment of fake Input Tax Credit i.e., availing of
credit on the invoices received from the persons without actual supply of goods.
Based upon the authorization given by the Competent Authority, summons have
been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Officer as per Section 70 of the
CGST Act. The power conferred on the Officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act
is to summon any person to appear and produce document or examine before
him. The inquiry is deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sec-
tion 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of issuing so many
notices/summons, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Authority on
various dates. The preliminary investigation revealed that the input tax credit is
taken by the petitioner from the bogus entities. The petitioner is operating from
rented premises and his whereabouts were not known to his neighbours. The
respondent is authorized to conduct proceedings in terms of Section 67 of the
CGST Act. Neither the petitioner nor his authorized person approached the re-
spondent till 3-3-2020. The whereabouts of the petitioner is not known. The peti-
tioner is a habitual offender, he may commit same offence and he is deliberately
avoiding his appearance for the purpose of enquiry proceedings. His bail peti-
tion filed before the City Civil and Sessions Judge came to be dismissed. If the
bail is granted to the petitioner, he will destroy the evidentiary material and oth-
er documents. The anticipatory bail is not maintainable and it is pre-matured. In
similar cases, the Telangana High Court has dismissed the petitions in P.V. Ra-
mana Reddy v. Union of India in Writ Petition Nos. 4764, 4769, 4892, 5074, 5130,
5329, 6952 and 7583 of 2019, dated 18-4-2019 [2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 185 (Telangana)]
which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed P.V. Ramana Reddy’s [2019 (26) E.L.T. J175
(S.C.)] case in the case of Union of India v. Sapna Jain and Others in SLP (CRL.)
Nos. 4322-4324/2019, dated 29-5-2019 and hence, prayed for dismissing the bail
petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner
as well as the Learned State Public Prosecutor and perused the records.
5. Before adverting to the case of the petitioner, it is worth to consider
the judgment of the Telangana High Court and the judgment of the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court which were relied by the respective Learned Counsel.
6. The main objection raised by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the respondent is that the anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The petitioner
is required to file only writ petition for seeking relief under the CGST Act. In
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  83