Natwar Kumar Jalan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Natwar Kumar Jalan, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated against him under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, and his subsequent arrest on December 4, 2024. The allegation is that the petitioner availed input tax credit (ITC) using false or forged bills without actual receipt of goods. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Guwahati Zonal Unit, initiated these proceedings. The petitioner was detained in custody since his arrest. The High Court, after hearing arguments and considering relevant legal provisions and case law, issued an interim order on December 18, 2024, directing the petitioner's release on bail subject to certain conditions.
Held
The Court did not definitively rule on the merits of the allegations against the petitioner or the petitioner's contentions. Instead, the Court noted that the investigation had been completed and a report submitted. Furthermore, no violation of the conditions stipulated in the interim order dated December 18, 2024, was recorded. Consequently, the Court, in agreement with the learned counsels for both parties, disposed of the writ petition by making the interim order absolute. This means the petitioner's release on bail, subject to the conditions previously imposed, was confirmed. The Court explicitly stated that this order, and the interim order, should not be treated as a comment on the merits of the allegations by the GST authorities or the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, are legally sustainable, considering the allegations of availing ITC through false or forged bills without receipt of goods? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, argued that the proceedings and subsequent arrest were initiated against him. The judgment does not explicitly detail the petitioner's specific arguments beyond challenging the proceedings and arrest. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, represented by the GST standing counsel, contended that the petitioner is guilty of offences prescribed under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, and is punishable under Clause (I) thereof, due to alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit using false or forged bills. The DGGI initiated the proceedings based on these allegations.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(c), Section 69(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R
2025
Heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned standing counsel for GST.
This writ petition is directed against the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Case No. DGGI/INV/GST/3384/2024 under Section 132 (1)(C) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, (CGST) Act, 2017 as well as the subsequent arrest of the petitioner, who has been detained custody since 04.12.2024. 3. This court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties recorded that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has availed of input tax credit by without actual receipt of the good and thereby availed benefit of input tax credit by using false or forged bill and is therefore, guilty of the offences prescribed under Section 132 (1)(c) and therefore punishable under Clause (I) of the said section.
Thereafter, after elaborate discussion of provisions of law and the judgment cited at bar including sub-section 1 of Section 69 and the determinations made in 1, Daulat Samirmal Mehta vs Union of India & Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 200 Division Bench and Sunil Kumar Jha vs Union of India & Ors. [WP(ST) No. 5484/2021], while issuing notice of motion passed the following orders on 18.12.2024: “Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1 Lakh as well as execute a bail bond of Rs. 1 Lakh with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) and the subject to following conditions: (1) That the accused-petitioner shall appear before the Investigating
Page No.# 3/3 Officer as and when required and co-operate with the investigation; (2) That the accused-petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police office or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (3) That the accused-petitioner shall not obstruct the progress of the investigation/trial. And (4) That the accused-petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.”
It is submitted at the bar that already investigation has been completed and report has been submitted. This court has also not found any allegation of any violation of the conditions stipulated in the interim order dated 18.12.2024. 6. Therefore, in the fitness of things and as agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of making the aforesaid interim order dated 18.12.2024 absolute.
It is needless to say that the present order and the order dated 18.12.2024, shall not be treated as a comment on the merit of the allegation of the GST authorities as well as on the merit of the contention raised by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition.
This disposes the writ petition JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.