TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondent Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vignesh Ramanathan, Advocate (Amicus Curiae). JUDGMENT PER NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Aforesaid three Petitions are being decided together, as they essentially involve similar facts and common questions of law. 2. Aforesaid Petitions have been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the impugned Order dated 08.07.2021 (in CRL.M.C. Nos. 2300/2021 and 2330/2021) and Order dated 13.04.2022 (in CRL.M.C. No. 3652/2022), whereby, while dismissing the Anticipatory Bail Applications of the respective Respondents, namely, Girish Sachdeva, Harish Sachdeva and Abhinav Bardhan, directions were issued to the Petitioner/Department to give prior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Craft Pvt. Ltd. 5. On 28.12.2018, Summons were issued to the respective Respondents to appear before the Petitioner; however, instead of appearing, they filed replies, furnished certain documents, and sought a further date for hearing. 6. The Petitioner stated that M/s Daak International Pvt. Ltd. remained active but had not filed its Returns from March, 2019 onwards, namely, GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-9, as was evident from the GST portal. Therefore, the Company was not discharging its GST liabilities and was suppressing material facts from the Petitioner/Department. 7. Since the Respondents were neither appearing pursuant to the respective Summons nor furnishing the requisite documents required to bring the investigation to its log....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022, directed the Petitioner to give one week's prior notice before taking any coercive action against the respective Respondents. 13. Aggrieved by the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022, the aforesaid three Petitions have been filed by the Petitioner/Department. 14. The grounds of challenge are that the Order directing the service of one week's advance notice upon the Respondents, is erroneous in law and contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 305, wherein it was observed that the power of arrest can be exercised only in cases where the Customs Officer has 'reason to believe' that a person has been guilty of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the Bail Application by observing that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and causing huge loss of public funds are required to be viewed seriously and constitute grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole, thereby posing a serious threat to its financial health. 18. Similarly, in Parvinderjit Singh v. State, (2008) 13 SCC 431, it was held that a blanket order of Anticipatory Bail, should not ordinarily be passed. The Applicant must demonstrate that he has reason to believe that he may be arrested, and such belief must be founded on reasonable grounds. It is only when there is some tangible material on the basis of which it can be said that the Applicant's apprehension of arrest is genuine, that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... despite repeated summons issued by the Petitioner/Department. The investigation is at a crucial stage, since a substantial amount of revenue is involved and a fraud is alleged to have been committed. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022 be set aside. 24. In response, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that they had appeared before the Authority and produced all relevant documents, and had also undertaken to appear before the Department/Petitioner and join the investigation. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned Orders dated 08.07.2021 and 13.04.2022, and that all three Petitions are liable to be dismissed. Submissions heard and record perused.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argued that such Blanket Order / protection against all offences is not tenable, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal (supra) and Vishwas Shripati Patil (supra). However, it cannot be overlooked that, in the present case, no blanket protection has been granted to the Respondents, nor have any conditions been imposed on the Petitioner's right to conduct the investigation. Rather, directions have been issued to the Respondents to join the investigation as and when required by the Petitioner. In the event the Respondents fail to comply with the notices or join the investigation, the Petitioner/Department is well within its rights to proceed in accordance with law. 31. Considering that there was no imminent ....