Kamal Kumar Sharma And Ors vs. The State Of Assam And Anr

Facts

The petitioners, Kamal Kumar Sharma, Pradip Kumar Sarawgi, and Suraj Pareek, filed an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, apprehending arrest. They received a notice dated July 3, 2025, from the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax concerning Case ID No. AD180725000184B. This notice followed a seizure made on July 2, 2025, under Section 67(2) of the Assam GST/CGST Act, 2017, at the petitioners' business premises. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and produce specified documents. The petitioners contended that the given timeframe to appear was insufficient to engage a consultant, and their failure to appear led to apprehension of arrest.

Held

The Court held that there was no genuine apprehension of arrest for the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for State GST that the notice issued to the petitioners contemplated their appearance either in person or through an authorized representative, thereby indicating that personal appearance was not a mandatory requirement. The Court accepted this submission and observed that the petitioners could appear before the Assessing Authority on July 31, 2025, and file an appropriate application seeking an extension of time. The anticipatory bail application was disposed of with these observations. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided, as it found no immediate threat of arrest based on the interpretation of the notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, requiring personal appearance on short notice, creates a genuine apprehension of arrest for the petitioners, considering the seizure of business premises under Section 67(2) of the Assam GST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the notice demanding their appearance on the very next day was insufficient to engage a consultant to represent them before the authority. This lack of adequate time, coupled with their subsequent default in appearing, led to a genuine apprehension of arrest by the Assessing Authority. Revenue's Contention: The State GST, through its Standing Counsel, argued that a bare perusal of the notice indicated that the petitioners were requested to appear either in person or through an authorized person, implying that personal appearance was not mandatory. They further submitted that since the petitioners had defaulted in appearing on July 4, 2025, they could still appear before the Assessing Authority on July 31, 2025.