P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Superintendent (Anti Evasion)

Held

The Court held that the petitioner could not make out any special ground for the grant of anticipatory bail. This decision was based on the cumulative effect of previous judicial pronouncements. The Court noted that a Division Bench had previously dismissed writ petitions challenging arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, observing that prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act does not depend on the completion of assessment and that arrest is permissible even before adjudication or assessment. The Division Bench had also found that while writ petitions were maintainable and protection under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. might be available, relief against arrest was not granted due to special circumstances. A subsequent Single Judge order dismissing a criminal petition for anticipatory bail reiterated that Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not available for pre-prosecution arrest under the GST Act, and the only recourse was Article 226 of the Constitution. Crucially, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petitioner's Special Leave Petitions against these orders. Therefore, in view of the observations by this Court and the Apex Court, the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail was denied.

Facts

The petitioner, Managing Director of M/s. Infinity Metal Products India Limited, sought anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad GST Commissionerate. The petitioner's business premises were searched, and records seized on February 27, 2019. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition challenging summons, which was dismissed on April 18, 2019. Subsequently, a summons was issued on the same day, returnable at an impossible time, leading to a reply from the petitioner. A prior criminal petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed on April 30, 2019, based on the Division Bench's order. Appeals to the Supreme Court against these orders were dismissed on May 27 and May 29, 2019. The petitioner argued that no proper show-cause notice or assessment orders were issued, and the GST Act's provisions regarding assessment and audit were not followed. He also contended that summons were issued without reasonable time and pertained to periods before the GST Act's applicability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in proceedings initiated under the CGST Act, 2017, given the prior dismissal of his writ petition and criminal petition for anticipatory bail, and the subsequent dismissal of his Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court. Petitioner's Arguments: - The respondents have not issued any show-cause notice or assessment orders as contemplated under Sections 73-A, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, or 66 of the GST Act. - The summons issued for sale transactions prior to July 1, 2017, are not germane to the GST Act. - No opportunity was given to explain alleged tax evasion or loss to the government. - The issuance of multiple summons without reasonable time is contrary to law. - The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record and a permanent residence, posing no flight risk. Revenue's Arguments: - The petitioner has already raised the same issues in previous proceedings (W.P.No.4764 of 2019 and Crl.P.No.2293 of 2019) which were dismissed, and the Supreme Court has also dismissed the Special Leave Petitions against these orders. - Therefore, the petitioner cannot re-agitate the matter.