Page 85 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ]HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAKSHMANA v. STATE, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE 451
protection against arrest. It must be remembered that the petitioners cannot
be placed in a higher pedestal than those seeking anticipatory bail. On the
other hand, the jurisdiction under Article 226 has to be sparingly used, as
cautioned by the Supreme Court in Km. Hema Misra (cited supra).”
9. On merits of the case, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court has dis-
missed the writ petitions, which were challenged by the assesees before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP Crl. No. 4430/2019. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 29-5-2019. In the case of Sapna
Jain (SLP Crl. Nos. 4322-4324/2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as un-
der :
“while entertaining any such request in future, the order of the Telangana
High Court be kept in mind, wherein the Court has taken a view contrary
to that of the other High Courts.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while dealing with any such cases un-
der the CGST Act, the order passed by the Telangana High Court in P.V. Ramana
Reddy’s case shall be kept in mind.
10. As already held above in P.V. Ramana Reddy’s case, the Telangana
High Court has held that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the pre-arrest bail is maintainable, but on the merits, the writ petitions
were dismissed as huge amount of tax evaluation was involved in the said case.
It is also be noted that the then Learned Additional Solicitor General Sri K.M.
Nataraj has argued in the said case that writ petitions cannot be converted into
bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail. The
said submission has been placed at paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment and
the Telangana High Court rejected the contention of the Additional Solicitor
General and the writ petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court has dis-
missed the SLP, however, no speaking order has been passed. In this regard, the
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited stated supra, wherein
various guidelines have been issued. The relevant guidelines are as follows :
“Held, (i) an order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking
order or a speaking one - In either case it does not attract the doctrine of
merger - An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substitut-
ed in place of the order under challenge - All that it means is that Supreme
Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal
being filed
(ii) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives rea-
sons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications-
Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law
by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Art. 141 of the Constitution -
Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order
are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the par-
ties thereto and also the Court, Tribunal or authority in any proceedings
subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being
the Apex Court of the country - But, this does not amount to saying that the
order of the Court, Tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the or-
der of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the or-
der of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subse-
quent proceedings between the parties.”
11. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sapna Jain stated
supra has held as under :

GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  85