TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Deputy Director, Directorate General of G.S.T., Intelligence, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. By the order dated 16.04.2021, the petitioner was admitted on interim bail on condition that he shall appear before the concerned investigating authority or before the learned Court where the case is lying pending in connection with the above referred case and to submit compliance report regarding his appearance in connection with the case before the learned A.C.J.M. by 30.04.2021. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by learned Magistrate having regard to the fact that he had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter placed before him, as the compliance of Section 78 of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 81 of the Code is necessary and as nothing transpired from the record regarding the substance of information and accusation levelled against the petitioner and further relying on a decision in the case of Madhusudan Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2000 CrLR (Cal) 305, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be detained in judicial custody when no substance of accusation was mentioned in the LOC and the prosecuting agency could not intimat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers are to be exercised by the Resolution Professional and the entire operations of the entity is undertaken in the insolvency. The petitioner alleges that the respondent no.5 issued summons to the petitioner about an enquiry undertaken under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (in short "CGST Act") for having reasons to believe that the petitioner was in possession of the facts and/or documents which were relevant for the said enquiry. Mr. Moitra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to various pages of the writ application contending that several summons were issued to the petitioner and the petitioner replied each and every summon and twice the petitioner attended before the authority for the purpose of enquiry. Accordingly, it is claimed that from the record there is no prima facie case of the petitioner being an accused in connection with any specific case registered against him, though, it is admitted that he was the Managing Director of the respondent no.6 company admittedly under liquidation and Resolution Professional has been appointed by the N.C.L.T. who has taken over the entire management of the respondent company no.6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities that the employees in the knowledge being the employees in the finance/taxation department of the respondent no. 6, company have left the company due to non-payment of salaries. It is pointed out that the summon was issued by senior Intelligence Officer, MZU, under CBIC-DIN- 202012DWW0000000276E inter lia directing the petitioner to appear before DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, 14/2, Kareya road, 4th Floor, Kolkata - 700017 in connection with the ongoing proceedings but nothing to submit further from the end of the petitioner as the petitioner has already submitted all the documents as demanded previously by SIO, MZU. It is further submitted that since the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT waiving and extinguished and settled all tax dues whatever nature by the Central or State or local authority pertaining to any period prior to the effective date. There was no question for any summon being issued for enquiry in terms of Section 17 of DGST. It has been specifically clarified that all the dues pertaining any period prior to the effective date. The relevant clause of the Resolution Plan are set out hereinbelow for the purposes of convenience- "8(b) The Resolution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, cesses, unpaid Tax Deducted at Source/Tax Collected at Source, any other type of tax, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, whether part of above the claims/liabilities or not, whether part of due diligence finding or not, assessed or under assessment or assessed and under dispute, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or unknown, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, shall stand extinguished by virtue of the order of the Adjudicating Authority approving the Resolution Plan and the Company would not be liable to pay any amount against such demand. All notices, demand, assessments/appellate or other proceedings, including criminal proceedings pending in case of the company, on the date of the order of the Adjudicating Authority relating to the period prior to the Effective Date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, should be treated as waived/written off and should be considered to be not payable by the company by virtue of the order of the Adjudicating Authority. All notices proposing to initiate any proceedings against the company in relation to the period prior to the Effective Date and pending on that date, shall be considered non-e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court despite NBW's and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest. B. The Investigating Officer shall make a Written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect. C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing before I.O. or should surrender before the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned. D.LOC is a coercive measures to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law,. The subordinate courts' jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBW's or affirming ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade to submit that in the cited case on a reliable information that the petitioner has arrived from Dubai and is available in India, a Look Out Circular was issued against him to ensure his presence for carrying out further investigation in the matter. It has also been stated in paragraph 5 of the decision that the petitioner was detained by the Immigration Authorities at Delhi Airport while he was trying to board a flight to Nepal. On receipt of information about his detention, the second respondent took him to Mumbai Zonal Office along with the Passport for examining him for his evidence under Section 50 (2) and 50 (3) of PMLA. Admittedly, the Passport was handed over to the petitioner but the said Look Out circular was under challenge in the writ application. The Hon'ble Court observed in its conclusion that Look Out Circular was issued in the year 2016 and was challenged after almost more than a year, long enquiry. Hence, the impugned Look Out Notice was not quashed. Taking cue from the observation of the cited decision, Mrs. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that in the present case, the Look Out Circular was issued against the petitioner in Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, he has a right to travel beyond the territory of India as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) and in case of Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam Assistant reported in 19767 AIR 1836:1967 SCR (2) 525 wherein it has been held by majority decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court that 'the expression personal liberty which occurs in Art. 21 of the Constitution includes the right to travel abroad and that no person can be deprived of that right except according to procedure established by law. The mere prescription of some kind of procedure cannot even meet the mandate of Article 21. The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. The question whether the procedure prescribed by law which curtails or takes away the personal liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 is reasonable or not has to be considered not in the abstract or on hypothetical considerations like the provision for a full-dressed hearing as in a court room trial but in the contest, primarily, of the purpose which the Act is intended to achieve and of urgent situations which those who are charged with the duty of administering ....