TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent examination to the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. In fact by order dated 26.02.2021, this Court had issued notice for consideration of the bail prayer. 3. Facts necessary for adjudication may be set out briefly as under:- 3.1. Petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021 by respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers under section 69 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, "the MGST Act" hereinafter). As per the arrest memo dated 15.01.2021, an investigation visit was conducted on the business premises of the petitioner under section 67 of the MGST Act. Upon recovery of incriminating materials, it emerged that petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Savvy Fabrics and partner of M/s. Shubhmangal Textile Industries LLP h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o prevent tampering with evidence and commission of similar offences, judicial custody of the petitioner was sought. 4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2021. Today, he has completed 54 days in custody. Referring to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, he submits that petitioner has paid a total of Rs. 4,68,66,408.00 to the respondents including Rs. 1,90,25,000.00 after arrest and under protest. Referring to section 69 of the MGST Act, he submits that legislature has conferred power upon the Commissioner to record reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence punishable under section 132 and on that basis, he may by order authorize any officer to arrest such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial custody of the petitioner and submits that authorization for arrest was given to the Assistant Commissioner by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Investigation - B), Mumbai by order dated 14.01.2021 which is recorded in the remand application. His submission is that the reasons to believe was recorded by the Joint Commissioner whereafter authorization was given to the Assistant Commissioner to effect the arrest. Mere mentioning in the arrest memo by the Assistant Commissioner that he had reasons to believe that petitioner had committed the offences and therefore required to be arrested would not mean that the said power was exercised independently by the Assistant Commissioner. 5.1. Mr. Mishra has referred to the judgment of the Tel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive years. Since penalties in India are ordinarily imposed concurrently, the maximum penalty that can be imposed upon conviction for an offence under section 132(i) would be 5 years and with fine. 8. Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the procedure where investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours. As per section 167(2)(a)(ii), the magistrate can authorize detention of an accused upto a maximum period of sixty days where the investigation relates to an offence other then those which are punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and on expiry of the aforesaid period of sixty days, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case when admittedly respondents have not lodged any first information before the police under section 154 Cr.P.C. Respondents have also not filed any complaint before the competent magistrate under section 200 Cr.P.C. In fact there was no formal accusation against the petitioner prior to arrest. The first time such accusation has been placed on record was after arrest that too in the form of remand application. A remand application by its very nature cannot be construed to be a first information or a complaint as is understood in law. If the remand application is excluded, then till today after 26 days of custody of the petitioner, there is still no formal accusation against the petitioner. 39. Reverting back to Arnab Manoranjan Goswami....