TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2026, issued by the respondent No. 1 under Section 70 of Goods and Services Act read with Section 132 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act') with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, 2017. 2. As per the allegations, in the year 2024, raids were conducted in the premises of M/s Ansh Steel Alloys, which is a firm under the control of the present petitioner a Karta of HUF, qua the purchases made during the assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioner giving directions to provide copies of purchase invoices, ledger accounts etc. of M/s Mahadev Multi Metals along with certain other documents on the allegations that the firm M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led/fictitious firms. These receipts, which are valued at Rs.197.29 crores, are allegedly involving ITC worth Rs. 35 crores. It is argued that qua the proceedings, which have taken place or are pending for the aforementioned assessment years, no notice whatsoever could be issued against the petitioner/his firm in view of the abovementioned facts. With regard to subsequent assessment years, he is ready to join the investigation/inquiry. He is ready to produce all the relevant documents as desired by the respondents-authorities. The case is based on documentary evidence. His custodial interrogation is not at all required. No recovery is to be effected from him. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him into custody. The maximum punis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ords as called for and is consistently avoiding meaningful participation in the statutory inquiry. He seeks to stifle the investigation or is preempting future coercive. 6. It is further argued by learned senior standing counsel for respondent No.1 that on 11.03.2026, a search was conducted after undertaking proper authorization from the competent authority. Seizure of some technical devices was effected for the purpose of ongoing inquiry, to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions, to identify the complete network of fictitious entities and to examine the role of the petitioner in orchestrating and facilitating the fraudulent schemes. The petitioner, without joining the investigation, has filed this petition, which is premature. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8 Centax 224, Jitender Saharan v. Senior Intelligence Officer, (2026) 39 Centax 37 (P&H), Manjit Kumar v. Superintendent, (2022) 1 Centax 162 (P&H), Shanky Khurana v. State of Haryana (2024) 15 Centax 461 (P&H), Mahinder Kaur v. State of Haryana (2020) 41 GSTL 433 (P&H), DRI Goa v. Sanjay, Criminal Application (Main) no. 1168 of 2025, Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, 2008 (13) SCC 305, PV Ramana Reddy v. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online Tel 3332, PV Ramana Reddy v. Union of India, 2021(2) SCC 784 and Rajesh Gandhi v. Union of India (2024) 23 Centax 319 (Telangana). 7. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 8. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that an inquiry was previously initiated against the firm of the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that a person summoned under Sections 69 and 70 of the CGST Act cannot invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. (which corresponds to Section 482 of BNSS) for grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of summons. It was observed that power to arrest a person is statutory in nature. Though, in Radhika Aggarwal's case (supra), it was observed that it is not necessary that an application for grant of anticipatory bail should be moved only after an FIR is filed, as long as facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest and had also observed that the observations made in Chodamanai's case (supra) and some other cases as cited therein contrary to the aforesaid ratio should not be treated as binding, but ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fic allegations against the petitioner of wrongfully availing the ITC to the tune of a huge amount of money by showing fictitious transactions and on the basis of fake invoices. A raid was conducted in his premises on 11.03.2026 and he has been asked to produce certain documents, which he has not produced so far. The inquiry is at its nascent stage. As per the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner has not cooperated with the inquiry conducted so far. Though, a petition for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be stated to be not maintainable in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhika Aggarwal's case (supra), however, keeping in view the huge amount of money of govt. exchequer involved in the matter couple....