2021 (6) TMI 82 - HC - GST

Court grants anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., imposes conditions for return to India despite pandemic.

Saurav Gupta Versus CGST (Delhi East)

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considering their willingness to return to India for investigation ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - petitioner has neither appeared nor replied to the summons issued - HELD THAT:- Subject to petitioner appearing before the respondent authority and joining investigation, it is directed that in case the respondent authority decides to proceed under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and take coercive measures, a 7-day advance notice shall be served on the petitioner - Bail application disposed off. Issues: Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., Anticipatory bail, Summons under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, Look Out Circular, Pandemic-related restrictions, Coercive measures under Section 69 of CGST Act, Advance notice requirement, Disposal of bail application.Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.:The judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in a specific case. The petitioner, through counsel, submitted willingness to return to India and join the investigation, citing pandemic-related flight restrictions. The petitioner undertook to appear before the respondent authority immediately upon return. The court took note of this undertaking and directed the petitioner to abide by it.Summoned under Central Goods and Services Tax Act:The respondent informed the court that no complaint had been filed against the petitioner to date. The petitioner had only been summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but had neither appeared nor replied to the summons. Additionally, a 'Look Out Circular' had been issued against the petitioner. The respondent indicated that the decision to proceed under Section 69 of the CGST Act and take coercive measures would be made after the petitioner joined the investigation.Coercive Measures and Advance Notice Requirement:The court directed that in case the respondent authority decides to proceed under Section 69 of the CGST Act and take coercive measures, a 7-day advance notice must be served on the petitioner. This requirement aims to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to respond or take necessary legal steps before any coercive action is initiated. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and due process in such matters.Pandemic-related Considerations and Disposal of Bail Application:Considering the pandemic and flight restrictions, the petitioner requested a two-week extension to return to India and cooperate with the investigation. The court acknowledged this request and disposed of the bail application on the terms mentioned in the judgment. The respondent authority was directed to take appropriate steps regarding the 'Look Out Circular' issued against the petitioner to facilitate their return to India for joining the investigation.In conclusion, the judgment addresses various legal aspects related to the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., summons under the CGST Act, coercive measures, advance notice requirement, and pandemic-related considerations while ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal procedures.