Petitioner withdraws constitutional challenge to CGST Act sections 132(1)(b) and (c), granted interim bail for six weeks

The Bombay HC disposed of a writ petition challenging constitutional validity of CGST Act sections 132(1)(b) and (c) and seeking protection from arrest. Following precedent from Akshay Chhabra case, the court held that bail applications should be filed as criminal writ petitions before competent courts. The petitioner withdrew the constitutional challenge. The HC granted interim bail for six weeks to allow the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for regular bail proceedings. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the following Issues:
1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act.
2. Determination of when to exercise the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
3. Declaration of the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner.

Issue 1: Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act:
The petition sought a declaration that Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act are unconstitutional and violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench released the Petitioner on bail and issued various directives, including executing a personal bond and furnishing surety. The order was based on previous cases challenging the same sections of the Act. The petitioners in these cases also sought a writ to restrain the Respondents from taking coercive actions against them.

Issue 2: Determination of when to exercise the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act:
The petitioners requested a writ declaring that the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised upon determination of liability and failure to make payments towards such liability. The Division Bench granted bail to the petitioners and directed them to cooperate in the investigation, not tamper with evidence, and deposit their passports. The order was consistent with previous cases challenging the same provision of the Act.

Issue 3: Declaration of the legality of the arrest of the Petitioner:
The petitioners also sought a writ declaring the arrest of the Petitioner as illegal and requested to be enlarged on bail. The Division Bench, considering the circumstances and the nature of the petition, continued the interim order for six weeks to allow the Petitioners to take necessary steps. The Court emphasized the distinction between criminal and civil writ petitions and disposed of the case accordingly.

Separate Judgment:
In a similar case, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing that the bail granted to the Petitioner continue for a period of six weeks to enable them to approach the competent court. The Petitioner was allowed to seek bail and the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Indirect Tax enactment was not pressed in the Petition. The Court followed the course of action adopted in a previous case involving a similar issue.

---