Sandeep Goel And Another vs. Superintendent (Anti Evasion), Central Goods And Service Tax, CGST, Commissionerate, Ldh And Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sandeep Goel and another, are seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Complaint No. COMA/46361/2023, filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. The petitioners are employees of a firm, and they argue that the main allegations pertain to Sanjiv Goyal, who has already received interim protection from this Court. Previously, on 08.04.2024, the petitioners were granted one week to appear before the trial court, with a direction for their release on bail subject to the trial court's satisfaction. The petitioners have complied with this order and have been released on bail by the concerned court.
Held
The Court allowed the petition and made the interim order dated 08.04.2024 absolute. The reasoning was based on the fact that the petitioners had complied with the previous order of the Court by appearing before the learned trial court and have since been released on bail. Crucially, the respondents, representing the CGST and the State, did not dispute the petitioners' submissions regarding their compliance and subsequent release on bail. The Court found no reason to deny the anticipatory bail in light of the petitioners' adherence to the court's directions and the absence of opposition from the revenue authorities. The ratio decidendi is that when petitioners comply with interim orders for appearance and are released on bail, and the revenue does not contest this, the interim protection should be made absolute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to Complaint No. COMA/46361/2023 filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners, identified as employees of the firm, argued that the primary allegations in the complaint are against Sanjiv Goyal, who has already been granted interim protection by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a separate matter (CRM-M-10468-2024). They contended that their role is secondary and that they should be granted similar relief. Revenue/State's Arguments: The Superintendent (Anti Evasion), CGST, and the State counsel, on instructions, did not dispute the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
206/1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24th July, 2024 Sandeep Goel & another … Petitioners Versus Superintendent (Anti Evasion), CGST & another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate and Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora & Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel CBIC for the respondent No.
Mr. Navdeep Singh, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent No.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioners are seeking the concession of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Complaint No. COMA/46361/2023 dated 08.06.2023/01.07.2023 filed under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.
On 19.03.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had noticed the following submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioners: “Senior counsel for the petitioners relies upon order dated 04.03.2024 passed in CRM-M-10468-2024, whereby main accused Sanjiv Goyal has been granted interim protection. Further submits that the petitioners in the RATTAN PAL SINGH 2024.07.25 10.55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document present petition are merely employees of the firm and the main allegations, if any, will be against Sanjiv Goyal.”
Vide order dated 08.04.2024, the petitioners had been granted one weeks’ time to appear before the learned trial Court with a direction that they shall be released subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of the order dated 08.04.2024, the petitioners had appeared before the learned trial Court and have since been released on bail by the Court concerned.
Learned Sr. Standing Counsel CBIC as well as learned State counsel, on instructions, do not dispute the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and the interim order dated 08.04.2024 is made absolute.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 24, 2024 rps Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable
Yes/No RATTAN PAL SINGH 2024.07.25 10.55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.