Page 84 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

450 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Telangana
High Court in the case of P.V. Ramana Reddy stated supra and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Telangana High Court in the Special
Leave Petition and the same was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sapna Jain’s case stated supra.
7. Per contra, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has con-
tended that in a similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted
anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition Nos. 497/2019 connected with 498/2019,
dated 18-2-2019 in the case of Sri Avinash Aradhya v. The Commissioner of Central
Tax [2019 (23) G.S.T.L. 168 (Kar.)] and Sri Mallokaradhya I.P. v. The Commissioner of
Central Tax respectively. He further contended that in a similar case, the Bombay
High Court has rejected the bail petition and in the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Meghraj Moolchand Burad (Jain) v. Directorate General of GST
Intelligence Pune and Another has granted bail vide order dated 9-1-2019 [2019 (24)
G.S.T.L. J82 (S.C.)]. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is
no speaking order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Ramana Reddy’s
case in SLP, therefore, there is no law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in order to reject the bail petition in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited and Others v. Sri Maha-
deshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, Kollegal reported in (2019) 4 SCC 376.
8. Writ petitions were filed by P.V. Ramana Reddy before the Division
Bench of the Telangana High Court challenging the issuance of summons/notice
issued by the Authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The Hon’ble Tel-
angana High Court after considering various grounds urged by the Learned
Counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Solicitor General has held at para-
graph Nos. 47, 48 and 58 as under :
“47. Once it is found that Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be
invoked even in cases where Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application (in con-
trast to cases such as those under the SC/ST Act where it stands expressly
excluded) and once it is found that the limited protection against arrest
available under Sections 41 and 41A Cr. P.C. may be available even to a
person sought to be arrested under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017
(though the necessity to record reasons in the authorization for arrest may
not be there), it should follow as a coronary that the writ petitions cannot be
said to be not maintainable.
48. That takes us to the next question as to whether the petitioners are en-
titled to protection against arrest, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have already indicated on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Consti-
tution Bench in Kartar Singh and the ratio laid down in Km. Hema Mishra
that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant
protection against arrest, should be sparingly used. Therefore, let us see
prima facie, the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and the cir-
cumstances prevailing in the case, for deciding whether the petitioners are
entitled to protection against the arrest. We have already extracted in brief,
the contents of the counter affidavits. We have summarized the contents of
the counter affidavits very cautiously with a view to avoid the colouring of
our vision. Therefore, what we will now take into account on the facts, will
only be a superficial examination of facts.
xxx xxx xxx
58. Therefore, all the technical objections raised by the petitioners, to the
entitlement as well as the necessity for the respondents to arrest them are
liable to be rejected. Once this is done, we will have to examine whether, in
the facts and circumstances of these cases, the petitioners are entitled to
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  84