Ramshankar Singh vs. Central Goods And Service Tax Through Its Commissioner

BAIL APPLN./979/2025HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01011867202512 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN2 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr. Yash Aggarwal, Mr. Rahul Rajan and Mr. Aman Sinha, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC for CBIC with Mr. Siddharth Saxena, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Mr. Umang Misra, Ms. Medha Navami and Ms. Anya Suresh, Advs

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Ramshankar Singh, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking anticipatory bail under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent, Central Goods and Service Tax, represented by its Commissioner, argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not first approached the Trial Court. It was clarified that a previous petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner had been disposed of as premature. The petitioner's counsel then sought liberty to withdraw the present petition to approach the Trial Court, requesting protection during the upcoming Holi holidays to facilitate this.

Held

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable before it, as the petitioner had not first approached the Trial Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, to allow the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy, the Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for a period of 10 days from the date of the order. This protection was granted to enable the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and any anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court would be considered on its own merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present petition for anticipatory bail under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable before the High Court when the petitioner has not first approached the Trial Court, as per the respondent's contention. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted protection from coercive action for a limited period to enable him to approach the Trial Court, given the upcoming court holidays. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought protection from coercive action for a brief period to allow him to approach the learned Trial Court, citing the ensuing Holi holidays as a reason for urgency. The petitioner did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the petition but sought to withdraw it to pursue the correct procedural path. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable before the High Court because the petitioner had not first approached the Trial Court. They further clarified that a prior anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner had already been disposed of as premature.

Sections Cited

Section 482, Section 69, Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 979/2025 & CRL.M.A. 7414/2025 RAMSHANKAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.P. Singh, Mr. Yash Aggarwal, Mr. Rahul Rajan and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advs. versus CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC for CBIC with Mr. Siddharth Saxena, Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Raghav Bakshi, Mr. Umang Misra, Ms. Medha Navami and Ms. Anya Suresh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN % 12.03.2025

O R D E R

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.A. 7376/2025 (exemption)

Application stands disposed of.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. BAIL APPLN. 979/2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:59:47

At the outset, Mr. Singla, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondent/CGST submits that the present petition is not maintainable before this Court, in as much as the petitioner has not first approached the learned Trial Court. Further clarifying the position, Mr. Singla submits that though, a petition seeking anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioner, the same was disposed of as premature.

Faced with this situation, Mr. R.P. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the present petition to approach the learned Trial Court. He, however, urges that since there are ensuing Holi holidays in the Court, the petitioner may be protected for a brief period to enable him to approach the learned Trial Court.

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Trial Court. However, it is directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for a period of 10 days from today.

It is clarified that nothing has been expressed by this Court on the merits of the case and the anticipatory bail application, whenever filed by the petitioner, will be considered by the learned Trial Court on its own merits.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J MARCH 12, 2025/dss

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:59:47

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.