TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Grant of Bail under Section 69: Procedural Safeguards and Revenue Objectives Upheld</h1> <h3>Sunil Kumar Jha and Akshay Chhabra Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> Sunil Kumar Jha and Akshay Chhabra Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2021 (50) G. S. T. L. 237 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act.2. Scope of power under Section 69 of the CGST Act.3. Restraining the respondents from lodging any criminal complaint.4. Bail for the petitioners.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act:The petitioners sought a declaration that Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act is unconstitutional. The judgment does not explicitly address the constitutionality directly but focuses on the application and implications of these sections in the context of the case.2. Scope of Power under Section 69 of the CGST Act:The petitioners argued that the power under Section 69 can only be exercised upon determination of liability and consequent failure to meet such liability. The court analyzed the powers conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 69, emphasizing that the 'recording of reasons to believe' by the Commissioner that a person has committed the offense and is required to be arrested is essential. The court reiterated that the CGST Act is primarily for revenue collection, with arrest being incidental. The court noted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation and appeared before the authorities multiple times, which should have precluded the need for arrest under the principles laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.3. Restraining the Respondents from Lodging Any Criminal Complaint:The petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from lodging any criminal complaints against them. The court did not provide a specific ruling on this prayer but focused on the legality of the arrest and the necessity of continued detention.4. Bail for the Petitioners:The petitioners were arrested on 16.02.2021 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for allegedly availing ineligible input tax credit using fake invoices. The court examined the arrest memo and the remand application, noting that the maximum punishment for the alleged offense is five years. The court found no justification for the arrest, given the petitioners' cooperation and the lack of evidence of tampering or influencing witnesses. The court emphasized that continued detention without formal accusation is unjustified. Consequently, the court directed the release of the petitioners on bail with specific conditions, including the execution of a personal bond, furnishing surety, cooperation with the investigation, and surrendering passports.Conclusion:The court granted bail to the petitioners, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural safeguards and the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar. The court underscored that the CGST Act's primary objective is revenue collection, with arrest being a secondary measure, and highlighted the importance of 'reasons to believe' in the exercise of arrest powers under Section 69.
TaxTMI 