TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Person gets interim bail while challenging constitutional validity of Section 69 CGST Act 2017</h1> <h3>Ashish Kakkar Versus Union of India And Another</h3> Ashish Kakkar Versus Union of India And Another - 2023 (78) G. S. T. L. 406 (All.) Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.2. Alleged illegal arrest and procedural violations.3. Interim relief and bail application.Summary:1. Constitutionality of Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017:The petitioner challenged Section 69 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, claiming it is arbitrary and ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought either a declaration of unconstitutionality or a construction of the section in a manner deemed fit by the Court.2. Alleged Illegal Arrest and Procedural Violations:The petitioner argued that his arrest on 27.6.2023 under Section 69 of the Act was illegal. He cited a lack of compliance with Section 41 (1) of Cr PC and the Supreme Court's directions in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Satendra Kumar Antil vs. CBI. The petitioner contended that no show cause notice or adjudication was done to ascertain tax evasion before his arrest. The arrest memo did not show the 'necessity to arrest,' and there was no mention of any past conduct indicating non-cooperation with the investigation.3. Interim Relief and Bail Application:The petitioner sought interim bail, arguing that the Department was not keen on further investigation after recording his confession. The Court noted that the arrest memo used the word 'may,' indicating discretion, and found no satisfaction of 'necessity to arrest.' The Court referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Union of India, which mandated compliance with Section 41 (1) of Cr PC in every arrest under the Act, 2017, and was upheld by the Supreme Court.The Court granted interim relief, directing the petitioner to be released on bail under specific conditions, including cooperation in the investigation, non-tampering with evidence, and surrendering his passport. The Court emphasized that any willful violation of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail.Conclusion:The Court allowed the interim relief, releasing the petitioner on bail with stringent conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and adherence to legal procedures. The case was listed for further proceedings after eight weeks.
TaxTMI 