Mukesh Goyal vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to appear before the Investigating Officer as summoned, despite having obtained interim protection. The Court also noted the petitioner's lack of cooperation in submitting the required documents. Furthermore, the Court considered the allegation that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities, including issuing fake sale invoices to defraud the government exchequer. Based on these factors, the Court concluded that the case was not fit for granting pre-arrest bail. The Court rejected the pre-arrest bail application and directed the return of the case diary.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Mukesh Goyal, proprietor of M/s Khushboo Enterprises, a firm dealing in coal, filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, issued summons dated August 17, 2021, and November 3, 2021, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer. The petitioner's firm purchased and sold coal to parties in Assam, Bihar, and other states. The respondent contended that after obtaining interim protection, the petitioner failed to appear before the Investigating Officer and did not cooperate by submitting required documents. The respondent also alleged the petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities, including issuing fake sale invoices to defraud the government exchequer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering his alleged non-cooperation and involvement in fraudulent activities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with the summons. The specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel are not detailed in the judgment beyond the prayer for bail. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, argued that the petitioner, after receiving interim protection, failed to appear before the Investigating Officer as directed by the summons dated August 17, 2021, and November 3, 2021. Furthermore, the respondent contended that the petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation by not submitting the required documents. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities, specifically issuing fake sale invoices to defraud the government exchequer.