Akshay Jain vs. The Commissioner, In The Office Ofd.C.G.I., & Anr. & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Akshay Jain, filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Delhi High Court. The application arose from a notice issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The notice directed the petitioner to appear before Brijender Singh Sodhi, Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer, and provide specific documents, including invoices of M/s Lambent Marketing Private Limited, details of payments made to it, and any relevant agreements. The petitioner was directed to appear on March 2, 2022. The present application was filed on April 29, 2022, after the scheduled appearance date had passed. The petitioner's apprehension was also reportedly based on newspaper reports concerning a raid by the CBI on the said office.

Held

The Court held that there were no grounds for moving the present anticipatory bail application. The primary reason was that the date on which the petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned official had already expired. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's apprehension was based on newspaper reports, which are not a sufficient basis for granting anticipatory bail. The Court found the petition to be without merit. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with a notice issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, for alleged non-compliance or investigation related to M/s Lambent Marketing Private Limited. The petitioner argued that an anticipatory bail application was necessary due to apprehension of arrest. The petitioner's apprehension was also reportedly fueled by newspaper reports about a CBI raid on the concerned office. The respondents (The Commissioner, in the office of DCGI, & Ors.) did not present any arguments as indicated by 'None' appearing for them.