Abdul Muslim Choudhary vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. While the judgment does not explicitly frame the issues as questions of law or detail the arguments on jurisdiction in depth, it acknowledges the applicant's submission that GST-related matters should be investigated under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court also noted that a learned Single Judge had previously granted interim protection to the applicant. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation had been completed and the chargesheet was ready for filing. Based on these factors, including the prior interim protection and the completion of investigation, the Court found that a case was made out for granting anticipatory bail. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties, and imposing conditions such as attending the police station when called, providing contact details, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission. The issue of police jurisdiction over GST matters was implicitly considered in the context of granting bail, but not definitively ruled upon as a standalone legal question.

Facts

The applicant, Abdul Muslim Choudhary, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered on October 4, 2024, for offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution alleges that co-accused Mohammad Kaish Rehamani, in conspiracy with others, fraudulently incorporated a company named D.B. Enterprises in the informant's name using his documents and SIM card. This company allegedly conducted scrap material business worth Rs. 5,39,31,713/-, but failed to pay GST amounting to Rs. 1,03,71,568.70. The informant was subsequently approached by a GST officer demanding this unpaid tax. The applicant claims no involvement and argues that GST-related matters should be investigated under the GST Act, not the IPC. A learned Single Judge had previously granted interim protection to the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police have the jurisdiction to investigate allegations pertaining to non-payment of GST, which are primarily governed by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in a criminal case registered under the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Petitioner's Contention: The applicant argued that the allegations concerning GST non-payment fall within the exclusive domain of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and thus, the police investigation under the IPC for these specific aspects is inappropriate. They relied on the existence of elaborate provisions within the GST Act for handling such matters. Respondent's Contention: The State opposed the anticipatory bail application. While not explicitly detailing their argument on the jurisdiction issue, their opposition implies that they believe the criminal investigation, including the GST non-payment aspect as part of the alleged fraud, is within their purview. They stated that the investigation is complete and a chargesheet is ready to be filed.