Page 86 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

452 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
“As different High Courts of the country have taken divergent views in the
matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by
this Court. Hence, the notice.
As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest
bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not in-
clined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High
Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this
Court by Order dated 27-5-2019 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 4430/2019 had
dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of
the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of
Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High
Court in the present case.”
12. Further, the Union of India challenged the granting of relief of bail
in favour of Sapna Jain by the Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has not set aside the order of the Bombay High Court. Apart from that, in the
case of Meghraj Moolchand Burad (Jain) stated supra in ABA No. 2333 of 2018, the
Bombay High Court has dismissed the bail petition filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. and the assessee filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P
(Crl.) No. 244 of 2019 [2019 (24) G.S.T.L. J82 (S.C.)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
granted anticipatory bail vide judgment dated 13-12-2018. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-2-2019 in the case of Avinash Aradhya
stated supra has granted anticipatory bail by imposing conditions. In another
batch of case, on 15-4-2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted an-
ticipatory bail to one Mahendra Kumar Singhi [2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 721 (Kar.)] and
Suman Mahendra Kumar Singhi. The said bail orders were not challenged by the
respondent-State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court while granting anticipatory bail considered the provisions of Sections
132, 137 and 138 of the CGST Act and by considering the principal laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 granted the relief by impos-
ing conditions. Even otherwise, the Telangana High Court has not held that Sec-
tion 438 of the Cr.P.C. bail application is not maintainable in the case of the of-
fence which is punishable under the CGST Act.
13. That apart, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respond-
ent fairly admits that there is no statutory bar in the CGST Act either expressly or
impliedly for entertaining the bail petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Un-
like, the anticipatory bail has been prohibited in the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and there was bar for an-
ticipatory bail in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is relevant to mention that as per
the provisions of Section 70 of the CGST Act, the Officer has power to summon
any person whose attendance is considered as necessary either to give evidence
or to produce document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner as
provided in the case of Civil Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure, 1908, and every such inquiry referred to sub-section (1) shall deemed to
be “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of
the Indian Penal Code.
14. It is also relevant to mention that Section 69 of CGST Act empowers
the Commissioner to authorize any Officer of central tax to arrest a person, if the
Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence
specified in Clause (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132. Sub-
section (2) of Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers that where a person is arrest-
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  86