Court dismisses petitions, upholds GST Act over CrPC, finds fraud. Petitioners to pay costs.

The Court dismissed all petitions seeking to quash illegal proceedings, stay alleged proceedings, and restrain coercive steps against the Petitioners. It held that the GST Act's special provisions supersede the CrPC, finding prima facie evidence of fraud and imposing costs of Rs. 25,000/- on each Petitioner for filing the petitions. The Petitioners were directed to deposit this amount within four weeks for the Respondents' defense expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of illegal proceedings against the Petitioner.
2. Stay on the alleged illegal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner.
3. Restraint on the Respondents from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Illegal Proceedings Against the Petitioner:
The Petitioners, directors of M/s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings initiated against them by the GST authorities. The Petitioners argued that the proceedings were illegal as the provisions of Sections 154, 157, and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were not followed. They contended that these provisions must be applied for the registration of crime, investigation, and taking cognizance of the offence, and the non-compliance rendered the actions against them illegal.

The Respondent department countered that no summons were issued against the Petitioners and that the proceedings were conducted as per the GST Act, which is a special law with its own procedures. The department argued that fake invoices were issued by M/s. Rutu Enterprises to M/s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited for availing input tax credit fraudulently, leading to a GST liability of Rs. 84,00,046/-. The Petitioners had voluntarily deposited this amount, which was not under protest.

The Court held that the special provisions of the GST Act prevail over the CrPC. The GST Act provides specific procedures for investigation, search, seizure, and arrest, which were followed in this case. The Court found prima facie evidence of fraud against the Petitioners, making the proceedings valid.

2. Stay on the Alleged Illegal Proceedings Initiated Against the Petitioner:
The Petitioners sought an interim stay on the proceedings initiated against them. They relied on various interim orders from High Courts and the Supreme Court, arguing that the procedure under Chapter XII of the CrPC should be followed in GST cases. They cited the Supreme Court's order in Union of India v. Sapna Jain and others, which highlighted divergent views among High Courts and the need for clarification by a larger bench.

The Respondent department argued that the GST Act's special provisions allow for simultaneous adjudication and prosecution. They cited judgments from the Telangana and Gujarat High Courts, which upheld the application of the GST Act's procedures over the CrPC. The Gujarat High Court specifically held that the power of arrest under Section 69 of the GST Act could be invoked without completing the adjudication process.

The Court concluded that the GST Act allows for simultaneous adjudication and prosecution, and the special provisions of the Act take precedence over the CrPC. Therefore, the request for an interim stay was not justified.

3. Restraint on the Respondents from Taking Any Coercive Steps Against the Petitioner:
The Petitioners sought to restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps, including arrest, against them. They argued that no summons had been issued and that they had cooperated with the investigation by depositing the disputed amount. They also cited interim relief granted by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

The Respondent department maintained that they had followed the proper procedures under the GST Act and that the Petitioners had voluntarily deposited the amount after admitting to the fraudulent transactions. The department argued that the Petitioners' actions were premature as no criminal proceedings had been initiated yet.

The Court held that the special provisions of the GST Act, including Sections 67 (search and seizure) and 69 (arrest), were followed by the Respondents. The Court noted that the Petitioners had indirectly obtained relief akin to anticipatory bail, which is not ordinarily permissible in such cases. The Court emphasized the seriousness of white-collar crimes and the need to allow the investigation to proceed without undue interference.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all the petitions, holding that the special provisions of the GST Act prevail over the CrPC in matters of investigation, search, seizure, and arrest. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence of fraud against the Petitioners and imposed costs on them for filing the petitions. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- was to be deposited by each Petitioner within four weeks, to be given to the Respondents for their defense expenses.

---