TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/Suprim Patel/2020-21/B.1 registered with Office of Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad and release the petitioner; C) Pending admission and final disposal of this Petition to release the petitioner in connection with File No. CCST/STO/ENF/FSU-0/Suprim Patel/2020-21/B.1 registered with Office of Chief Commissioner. State Tax, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad; D) To dispense with the filing of the affidavit as the petitioner is in judicial custody; E) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper; F) To provide for the costs of this petition. 1.1 Glance at the facts limited to deciding the petition are as under : 1.2 The petitioner is a proprietor of Sun Transport Corporation having GSTN: 24DDGPP7810B1ZT, had his business premises at T-18. Supathya Arcade, Highway Road, Unjha, District Mehsana. The petitioner submits that the petitioner does not owe any transport vehicle but is arranging a transport vehicle on commission basis. 1.3 On 04/12/2020, the petitioner received a phone call from a GST officer at afternoon calling, the petitioner to present at his business premises. After the lunch the petitioner remained present at his business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 131(1)(a) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 alleging that the petitioner is operating 16 firms mentioned in the arrest memo. The petitioner stated that the petitioner was also served with the grounds of arrest memo. 1.10 The petitioner stated that after the petitioner was arrested the respondent No.2 had issued Summons dated 07/12/2020 to appear before him at 12.30 PM. 1.11 According to him on 07/12/2020, the petitioner was produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ahmedabad wherein respondents have admitted that the petitioner was kept under their custody from 4.12.2020 to 7.12.2020. 1.12 The petitioner stated that since the petitioner was produced beyond 24 hours of detention/arrest, an application was given on behalf of the petitioner to the learned of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad to release the petitioner as the petitioner's arrest and custody has become otiose and to take appropriate actions against GST officials. 1.13 The petitioner stated that since the petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondents, the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the petitioner was summoned on 4.12.2020 as he had received the call from GST officer followed by copy of summons to remain present before the GST Office, in an inquiry proceeding. He submitted that the petitioner was interrogated extensively upto 2:30 am of 5.12.2020 and thereafter he was taken to the GST office, Ahmedabad without his consent, in an Innova car hired by GST office. He further submitted that he was served with another summons on 5.12.2020 and again he was interrogated till late night of 3:00 am of 6.12.2020 at GST Office, Ahmedabad. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, on 4.12.2020 the petitioner's business premises and residence were searched under the order of seizure by the competent Officer under Rule 139(2) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017( for short the "GGST Rule"). 4. In addition to the above, he submitted that on 6.12.2020, the petitioner was taken to the Green Cross Laboratory at Ahmedabad for covid-19 test. Since the petitioner was illegally detained from 4.12.2020, the wife of the petitioner wrote an e-mail to the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Ahmedabad about illegal detention of the petitioner and later on the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner and to treat the custody of the petitioner from 4.12.2020 to 7.12.2020 as illegal detention. 6. The petition has been vehemently objected by learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave mainly on the ground that Annexure A and Annexure C, the two documents indicate that the office of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax has issued summons under Section 70(1) of the CGST Act and GGST Act, 2017. 6.1 Learned APP submitted that the petitioner is bound to appear in pursuance of the summons issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax once by Surat and once by Ahmedabad. He would submit that the petitioner had given consent to come to the office of State Tax-GST, Unjha. Learned APP referred to Annexure B, and submitted that since the petitioner has consented on his own volition to remain present before the GST office, he cannot contend that he was forcibly kept in detention. 6.2 Learned APP would further submitted that the petitioner has dispairingly failed to show that the summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and GGST Act are arbitrarily used and were accompanied by fear of arrest. In the circumstances, he would further submit that the authorisation as required under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nate Bench passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1724 of 2021 on dated 3.5.2021, by which the petitioner was released on regular bail. The observations and finding of the Coordinate Bench while releasing the petitioner on regular bail read as under : "6. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant has operated 16 fictitious firms and a tax liability to the tune of Rs.9,60,47,253/ had been evaded by misusing the registration numbers of various firms. The investigation culminated in complaint Case No.11282 of 2021 which was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 04.02.2021. A close perusal of the complaint prima facie reveals that there are 16 firms, which were part of scrutiny by the investigating agency. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant is involved in misusing the registration numbers of these 16 firms and the total tax evasion by generating eway bill without revealing the true identity of the real purchaser or real seller is stated to be Rs.96,047253/. The court has also examined the role and names connected with such firms and prima facie it appears that the applicant is involved in four firms viz: Meet Traders(Rs.39,39....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its order that the inquiry and the questioning of the petitioner runs a long way around 232 questions. It is not worthy that the time period in which the petitioner was summoned was a peak covid period. According to the papers on record the petitioner was taken for covid test to Green Cross Laboratotory on 6.12.2020. Judicial notice can be taken that, in covid time period, Government had issued directives and reduced physical movement. Admittedly the petitioner was taken for covid-test on 6.12.2020. On 4.12.2020 and 5.12.2020 the petitioner was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST and GGST Act. On 6.12.2020, he was taken for covid test and on 7.12.2020 the petitioner was arrested following procedure laid down under Section 70 of CGST and GGST Act. Thus, contention that petitioner was detained illegally is unsustainable. Annexure B on record reflects that the petitioner volunteered to remain present before the GST office on 4.12.2020. The contention that petitioner was illegally detained in the custody are found missing in a petition filed for regular bail. 10. Various contentions are raised by the petitioner in its ground and multiple judgments are pressed into service, but what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 dated 06/05/2024, this Court held as under : 11. Recently, this Court in Manishaben Vrajlal Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat & Ors., in CR.RA No.10 of 2024, after referring the judgment of Bombay High Court as well as Kerala High Court has observed in paragraph 15 to 17 as under: "15. What could be further noticed that impugned order is passed by learned Magistrate. Aggrieved by such impugned order, revision can be filed in Sessions Court, however, the complainant - the first informant has directly approached this Court bypassing the Sessions Court to challenge the impugned order. Of course, Section 397 of the Code provides for the concurrent jurisdiction to the Sessions Court as well as the High Court to examine correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. In case of Shri Padmanabh Keshav Kamat vs Shri Anup R. Kantak & Others reported in 1998(5)BOMCR 546 and in case of Tejram S/O. Mahadeorao Gaikwad vs Smt. Sunanda W/O Tejram it has been held that when two forums are available to correct alleged wrong then it will be appropriate to approach lower forum. Recently, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Natwar Lal vs. State [2008 (3) RajLW 2522] after referring to the....