Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail could be invoked at the summons stage under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and whether bail granted by the Sessions Court was liable to be cancelled.
Analysis: The controlling principle applied was that a person summoned under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for anticipatory bail, and the proper remedy for pre-arrest protection lies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the respondent was summoned under the GST regime and approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction, the grant of anticipatory bail was contrary to the settled legal position.
Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, and the bail granted by the Sessions Court was cancelled.
Final Conclusion: Pre-arrest protection at the summons stage under the GST law must be sought in writ jurisdiction, not by invoking anticipatory bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned under Section 69(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and must instead approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.