2021 (5) TMI 94 - HC - GST

Court denies anticipatory bail in connection with M/s. G.K. Traders purchases

Neeraj Kasyap Versus Union Of India And Another

Neeraj Kasyap Versus Union Of India And Another - TMI Issues:- Application for anticipatory bail against summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.- Validity of purchases made from M/s. G.K. Traders.- Potential arrest threat due to ongoing inquiry against M/s. G.K. Traders.- Requirement for applicant's presence in the inquiry to establish genuineness of invoices.- Possibility of applicant's arrest based on involvement with fake or bogus invoices.- Evaluation of evidence and lack of material basis for arrest apprehension.Analysis:The judgment addresses an anticipatory bail application filed by an individual against summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant claimed to have made valid purchases from M/s. G.K. Traders and highlighted the threat of arrest despite the genuineness of the transactions. The court noted an ongoing inquiry against M/s. G.K. Traders regarding forged invoices, which necessitated the applicant's participation to establish the authenticity of the invoices in question. However, the court emphasized that mere participation in the inquiry did not automatically lead to the applicant's arrest, especially without concrete evidence linking him to any fraudulent activities.The judgment highlighted that even if certain invoices from M/s. G.K. Traders were found to be fake, it did not automatically implicate the applicant unless there was evidence of his involvement or collusion. The court emphasized the need for revenue authorities to establish that the applicant had benefitted from fraudulent invoices before considering any accusations or arrests. The court found no basis to infer such involvement presently and emphasized the applicant's claim of genuine transactions with M/s. G.K. Traders, distinguishing the current case from a previous court order.Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no real apprehension of the applicant being arrested at the current stage. The judgment allowed the applicant to present evidence before the revenue authorities to support his claims, indicating that the threat of arrest was not substantiated based on the available information. As a result, the anticipatory bail application was rejected, providing clarity on the necessity of concrete evidence linking the applicant to any fraudulent activities before considering arrest.