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>Bail Denied: Trading Firm Owner's GST Summons Case Rejected Due to Non-Appearance and Procedural Gaps</h1> <h3>Abhishek Pathak Versus State of U.P. And 4 Others</h3> HC dismissed transit anticipatory bail application for a trading firm proprietor facing GST-related summons. Court emphasized bail is granted only in ... Seeking grant of transit anticipatory bail - non-existent firm - summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 for the said GST inquiry - HELD THAT:- This Court does not find any merit in the application, as during the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is not present in the Court to attend the hearing of this case and the application has been filed on the basis of the instructions given by the accused applicant. Once, the applicant has claimed to be innocent, then the plea for pre-arrest bail ordinarily should be raised before the court where the jurisdiction lies. By now, it is settled law that the concession of transit anticipatory bail is granted only in exceptional circumstances where the denial of such a concession may result in prejudice to the accused-applicant. The limited concession cannot be granted in a routine manner and in this regard, a reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoriya Vs. State of Karnataka and others, [2023 (11) TMI 1286 - SUPREME COURT] Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. The Allahabad High Court, through Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J., dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transit anticipatory bail. The applicant, Abhishek Pathak, proprietor of M/S Samridhi Trading, apprehended arrest following summons under Sections 208, 210, 229, 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, related to a GST inquiry alleging the firm to be non-existent.The Court emphasized that transit anticipatory bail is granted only in 'exceptional circumstances' where denial would cause prejudice to the accused, citing the Supreme Court decision in Priya Indoriya v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749. Since the applicant was not present in court and the plea was made on instructions without attending the hearing, the Court held that ordinarily, pre-arrest bail must be sought before the competent jurisdictional court.Accordingly, the Court held: 'the limited concession [of transit anticipatory bail] cannot be granted in a routine manner,' and dismissed the application without expressing any opinion on the merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
