2021 (6) TMI 144 - HC - GST

Challenged arrest memo for tax offenses, granted interim bail, compliance with tax dues considered. Appearance conditions relaxed, case disposed.

The petitioner challenged an arrest memo related to tax offenses, seeking bail and contesting the applicable legal provisions. Despite interim bail being ... Grant of Interim Bail - core argument of the petitioner's counsel was that the case of the petitioner would fall only under Section 132(1)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 which is a non-cognizable offence - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the petitioner was arrested and was in custody for about six days. The petitioner has also remitted a sum of ₹ 2,67,39,619/- towards tax dues which aspect was taken note of for granting bail. The petitioner was also directed to stay within the Corporation limits of Madurai and appear before the first respondent daily. This condition was subsequently relaxed. Presently the petitioner is appearing before the first respondent twice a week. The re-arrest of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose, interim bail earlier granted to the petitioner is made absolute. The condition imposed by this Court to appear before the respondents twice a week is also relaxed and the petitioner undertakes before this Court that he would appear before the authority concerned as and when required - petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to arrest memo under specific sections of tax acts, grant of interim bail, relaxation of bail conditions, investigation status, re-arrest concerns.Analysis:The petitioner was arrested for offenses under specific sections of tax acts but challenged the arrest memo, arguing that the case should fall under a different non-cognizable offense section. Despite interim bail being granted, the core argument was considered. The petitioner spent six days in custody and paid a substantial sum towards tax dues, influencing the bail decision. Initially directed to appear daily before the first respondent, this condition was later relaxed to twice a week.The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the investigation by the respondents was ongoing, indicating potential future prosecution. The judgment emphasized that re-arresting the petitioner would not be beneficial, leading to the interim bail being made absolute. The requirement to appear before the respondents was further relaxed, with the petitioner committing to comply with future obligations.The judgment disposed of the writ petition while keeping all contentions open for both parties. No costs were imposed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. The decision reflected a balance between the petitioner's concerns, ongoing investigation, and the need for judicial discretion in granting and modifying bail conditions.