2023 (7) TMI 148 - HC - GST

Jurisdictional Dispute Highlights Complex Bail Proceedings Under Section 438 CrPC Involving Multiple Tax Authority Interactions

Directorate General of GST Intelligence Versus Sidhant Gupta

HC examined territorial jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC involving a dispute between tax authorities in Delhi, UP, and Haryana. The court directed ... Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - no proposal for seeking permission for arrest of the applicant / accused - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. The matter requires consideration - List on 13.07.2023. Issues involved: The judgment involves a challenge to orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Vacation Judge) regarding territorial jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and the issuance of directions in an Anticipatory Bail Application.Territorial Jurisdiction Issue:The petitioner challenges the assumption of territorial jurisdiction by the court in Delhi based on the residence of the respondents, arguing that the cause of action occurred in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. The petitioner contends that the complaint should be filed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in Uttar Pradesh. Reference is made to previous judgments regarding the significance of the residence of the person seeking anticipatory bail in determining territorial jurisdiction.Directions in Anticipatory Bail Application Issue:The petitioner contests the directions given by the learned ASJ to the petitioner department not to take coercive steps against the accused/respondent, despite no proposal for seeking permission for arrest. It is argued that there must be a real apprehension of arrest for the maintainability of an application under Section 438 of the CrPC. The respondent justifies the directions by citing a serious apprehension of arrest if the applicant/respondent joins the investigation, pointing out the arrest of other noticees during the proceedings.Separate Judgment:The High Court has issued directions for the filing of replies and written synopses by the parties before the next date of hearing, clarifying that the impugned orders have not been stayed, and the Trial Court can proceed further with the matter, with any subsequent order being subject to the decision of the High Court after hearing both parties.Conclusion:The judgment addresses the challenges to territorial jurisdiction in the context of an Anticipatory Bail Application and the issuance of directions regarding coercive steps, highlighting the importance of residence in determining jurisdiction and the necessity of a real apprehension of arrest for the application under Section 438 of the CrPC. The High Court has set a date for further consideration of the matter, allowing both parties to submit necessary documents and clarifying the status of the impugned orders.