TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncy charges of the applicant / accused for the period April, 2021 to June, 2021. On Page No. 68 of the Paper Book is the ledger account of applicant / accused, showing receipt of professional charges from the said company, i.e. M/s Goodhealth Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that these documents show the role of the applicant / accused in the company M/s Goodhealth Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this court for entertaining the present application, it was submitted that applicant / accused is a resident of Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The apprehension of arrest is at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this court. As such, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application. Attention of the court drawn towards Page No. 23 of the Paper Book. It was submitted that all the companies / business entities mentioned herein are having principal place of business in Delhi. If, as per the allegations, fake companies were registered in Delhi, then Delhi courts have jurisdiction. As per notification dated 09.02.2018, issued by Commissioner GST (Para No. 6), it is mentioned "In case there are more than one n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. Ld. Counsel for the applicant / accused also relied upon the judgment Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI in Bail Application No. 3771/2021 and Crl. M.A. No. 16552/2021 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.11.2021 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka titled Mr. Shravan A. Mehra & Anr. Vs. Superintendent of Central Tax in Crl. Petition No. 979/2019 with Crl. Petition No. 980/2019 decided on 19.02.2019. 3.3 It was submitted on behalf of the complainant department that in the order dated 13.06.2023, Ld. Vacation Judge, NDD, PHC, New Delhi ordered that firstly the point of territorial jurisdiction needs to be argued. It was submitted that once the question of territorial jurisdiction is decided, the party adversely affected / aggrieved will have the right to challenge the same. Ld. Counsel for the complainant department read out Para No. 3 of the reply. It was submitted that anticipatory bail is maintainable only where some part of offence is committed. It was submitted that withdrawal of an application amounts to rejection on merits. As such, the withdrawal of application of co-accused Sanjay Dhingra amounts to dismissa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on merits, since today the matter was fixed only for the arguments on the point of territorial jurisdiction. The place of resident of the applicant / accused does not confer jurisdiction. In response to another specific court query, it was submitted that the ineligible ITC was taken at Haryana. M/s Goodhealth Industries Pvt. Ltd. is not a fake company. The bail application of co-accused Sanjay Dhingra has already been dismissed. 4. Reasons for Order. 4.1 With regard to the maintainability of the present bail application before this court in terms of territorial jurisdiction, Ld. Counsel for the applicant / accused relied upon the judgment Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma (supra). Attention of the court was drawn to Para No. 15 of this judgment, wherein it was held that similar question arose in Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1981) 19 Delhi LT 300. It was held that cognizable offence was alleged to have been committed in the State of Punjab whereas the anticipatory bail was applied before the Delhi High Court as the accused had reasonable apprehension of arrest in Delhi. In that context, it was observed that there is nothing in Section 438 CrPC which restricts the jurisdiction of High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion of granting anticipatory bail to accused person who is allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be considered by the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities should have been perpetrated. Nothing specific is pointed out by the complainant department regarding the place of residence and place of apprehension of arrest of the applicant therein. In Sumit Tondon Vs. CBI in Bail Application No. 444/2012 decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 10.04.2012, it was held that the misappropriation and embezzlement under Section 13 of the PC Act were committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi Court committed no error in dismissing the anticipatory bail for want of territorial jurisdiction. In Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 1999 VAD Delhi 165, decided by Hon'ble Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 27.07.1999, whereas the judgment Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma (supra) was decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as such the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench would be binding. The Judgment Saurabh Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors. ....