Ashutosh Gupta And Another vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioners, Ashutosh Gupta and another, filed a petition under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail. This was in response to proceedings initiated by the respondents, State of Haryana and others, following summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The summons were dated 03.01.2024, 31.03.2025, and 11.04.2025. The petitioners apprehended arrest despite the proceedings being at a preliminary stage, before any determination under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act. An interim order dated 06.05.2025 granted protection from coercive steps, including arrest, subject to the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation and submission of documents. The petitioners stated they had complied with this order, a fact admitted by respondents No. 2 and 3.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners. The interim protection granted on 06.05.2025, which prevented coercive steps including arrest, was made absolute. This decision was made without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case concerning alleged tax evasion. The Court noted the petitioners' submission that they had complied with the interim order and the admission of this compliance by respondents No. 2 and 3. The Court also took note of the undertaking by the petitioners to make themselves available for further investigation as and when required. The grant of anticipatory bail was made subject to the conditions specified under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023). The ratio decidendi is that anticipatory bail can be granted in proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act if there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest and the petitioner demonstrates cooperation with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in proceedings initiated under Section 70 of the CGST Act, where no tax evasion has been determined under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, and there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest. Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued prematurely, before reaching a stage where tax evasion could be assessed under Sections 73 or 74. They argued that despite this preliminary stage, there was a real and reasonable fear of arrest upon appearing before the authorities. They relied on the principle that anticipatory bail can be granted when there is a genuine apprehension of arrest. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents admitted that the petitioners had complied with the interim order and undertook to make themselves available as and when required. No specific argument against the grant of anticipatory bail was recorded.