TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the present Application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS" for short), is before this Court seeking regular bail. Applicant was arrested by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Pune Zonal Unit, Pune in Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1479/2023-Gr C-O/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-PUNE for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(C), 132(1)(i) and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act" for short). 4. Said crime is registered as RCC No. 2301 of 2024 and is pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. Facts leading to the filing of the said proceedings are that Intelligence gathered by the officers of DGGI, Pune Zonal Unit, Pune that the proprietary firm by name M/s. Pathan Enterprise, registered in GST with PAN Card No. FVHPP6700D of Pathan Shbbirkhan Anvarkhan (GSTN No. 27FVHPP6700D1ZK), had availed inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently without any Tax Invoice and without any receipt of goods, passed on ITC fraudulently to other GST firm/person without supplying any goods/services. 5. Applicant was arrested on 12th Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Applicant is estopped from raising the said contention for the first time before this Court. Reliance is placed on paragraph no. 11 of the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 1st April 2025 filed by Respondent No. 1. 8. Mr. Saket Ketkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1 has advanced the following arguments in addition to the argument canvassed by Mr. Jitendra Mishra :- a. Applicant being aware of the basic fact, i.e., he being arrested in the case of evasion of GST, as indicated in the Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024, no further grounds of arrest were required to be notified to the Applicant. b. Applicant has made an endorsement in Gujarati language on the Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024 stating the Applicant was arrested and he having spoken to his son and family members of being taken to Pune after arrest. Similarly, Applicant having made an endorsement on the Authorization to Arrest dated 12th March 2024 in Gujarati language stating that the said document was shown and explained, the Applicant cannot plead ignorance of the grounds of arrest. 9. Dr. Ashvini Takalkar, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent No. 2 submits that the State of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v/s. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024)8 Supreme Court Cases 254, at paragraph no. 14 has held as under :- "14. In Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576], this Court after an elaborate consideration of the provisions contained in PMLA, CrPC and the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 22 held as below : (SCC pp. 595 & 597-98, paras 38 & 42-45) "38. In this regard, we may note that Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read out and explained to him in Hindi, that is neither here nor there as he did not sign the document. Non-compliance in this regard would entail release of the arrested person straightaway, as held in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1]. Such a precarious situation is easily avoided and the consequence thereof can be obviated very simply by furnishing the written grounds of arrest, as recorded by the authorised officer in terms of Section 19(1) PMLA, to the arrested person under due acknowledgment, instead of leaving it to the debatable ipse dixit of the authorised officer. 43. The second reason as to why this would be the proper course to adopt is the constitutional objective underlying such information being given to the arrested person. Conveyance of this information is not only to apprise the arrested person of why he/she is being arrested but also to enable such person to seek legal counsel and, thereafter, present a case before the court under Section 45 to seek release on bail, if he/she so chooses. In this regard, the grounds of arrest in V. Senthil Balaji [V. Senthil Balaji v. State, (2024) 3 SCC 51 : (2024) 2 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8] and the Bombay High Court in Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal [Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9938], which hold to the contrary, do not lay down the correct law. In the case on hand, the admitted position is that ED's investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants. As this form of communication is not found to be adequate to fulfill compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002, we have no hesitation in holding that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Act of 2002. Further, as already noted supra, the clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants, by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power. In effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of the ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained. (emphasis supplied)" 14. In t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rishi Prakash Pune Zoral Unit, Pune Designation : Superintendent / Appraiser / Senior Intelligence Officer 4. I nave been explained the grounds of my arrest. The fact of my arrest has been witnessed by Shri. Kumar Shankar Rangatte, Witness, son/daughter of Shri. Shankar Rangatte, resident of Ambivali, Thane. AUTHORISATION TO ARREST (Under Section 69(1) of the CGST ACT, 2017) I, Devendra Vasudeo Nagvenkar, Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Pune Zonal Unit, Pune, on the basis of facts and evidences placed before me, have reason to believe that Shri. Ashrabhai Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya S/o. Shri. Ibrahimbhai Kalavdiya, resident of E-502, Ultimate, Rander Road, Surat, Gujarat-394210, who is the operator of M/s. Pathan Enterprise having GSTIN 27FVHPP6700D1Zk and Principal place of Business at 7A/1, Shop No. 22, Girni Shewaladi, Shivchaitanya Colony, Ramanand Collection, Solapur Road, NR LAD, Pune, Maharashtra-412307, has actively indulged in estimated evasion of GST for the period from January, 2022 to December, 2022 to the tune of Rs. 11.14 Crore by way of fraudulent availment and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e requirements of provisions of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., as also the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. I am unable to accept the said contention as the Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024 does not contain the grounds of arrest of the Applicant, as would be required in terms of law and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I am in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, learned Senior Advocate that the Arrest Memo dated 12th March 2024 cannot be construed as grounds of arrest. 17. Mr. Jitendra Mishra and Mr. Saket Ketkar, the learned Special Public Prosecutors, tried to persuade this Court by contending that the Authorization to Attest contain the ground for arrest of the Applicant. Before considering the said contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutors, it would be apposite to refer to Section 69 of the said Act. Section 69 of the CGST Act. Section 69 of the CGST Act is extracted hereinbelow :- "69. Power to arrest.-(1) Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the "grounds" of "arrest" or "detention", as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 30. Furthermore, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Vineet Jain (supra) by placing reliance on the observation made therein to the extent that Vineet Jain had no antecedents. It is trite law that pendency of criminal cases against the accused by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal for bail. Discretion in granting bail is required to be exercised by considering the relevant material (see Prabhakar Tewari v/s. The State of U.P. and Another (2020)11 SCC 648). 25. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, arrest of the Applicant is illegal, warranting grant of bail to the Applicant. 26. In view of the above, the present Bail Application is allowed on the following conditions :- a. Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1479/2023- Gr C-O/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-PUNE filed by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Pune Zonal Unit, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1) (C), 132(1)(i) and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the ....