TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>GST Authorities Summon Petitioner Under Section 70, Anticipatory Bail Denied Due to Premature Request and Lack of Immediate Threat</h1> <h3>Suchismita Mohanty Versus State of Odisha</h3> GST authorities issued a spot summons to the petitioner under Section 70 of Odisha GST Act. The HC rejected the anticipatory bail application, finding the ... Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Arrest in connection Spot Summons No.1662 of CT & GST issued under Section 70 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On going through the materials on record including the copies of the summons issued as also the ratio of the case in State of Gujurat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer [2023 (7) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT], this Court is of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner of being taken to custody on appearance does not appear to be reasonable. Moreover, as per the settled position of law, the application under Section 438 of CrPC cannot be entertained at a stage when only a summon has been issued under Section 70 of the O.G.S.T. Act. Appeal disposed of directing the petitioner to abide by the summons and to render full cooperation in the ongoing investigation. Issues involved: Apprehension of arrest due to Spot Summons u/s 70 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Premature filing of anticipatory bail application; Invocation of power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C by a person summoned by GST authorities.Summary:Apprehension of arrest: The petitioner is anxious about being arrested in connection with Spot Summons No. 1662 of CT & GST issued u/s 70 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The summons requires the petitioner to appear before the Joint Commission of CT and GST Enforcement Range, Cuttack, to provide truthful evidence on relevant matters and produce necessary documents. The petitioner fears custody upon appearance.Premature anticipatory bail application: The learned Standing Counsel for GST matters highlighted that an investigation is ongoing, and a statutory notice has been issued to the petitioner to appear and provide evidence through documents and oral statements regarding alleged offenses. It was argued that the anticipatory bail application is premature, citing the case law including State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, to assert that invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not permissible for a person summoned u/s 70 of the GST Act.Invocation of power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C: The Court, after considering the arguments and examining the summons and relevant case law, opined that the petitioner's apprehension of custody upon appearance is not reasonable. It was further noted that as per established legal principles, an application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C cannot be entertained merely on the issuance of a summon u/s 70 of the O.G.S.T. Act. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of, directing the petitioner to comply with the summons and cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
TaxTMI 
