Nitin Jain vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax And Central Excise Division Panipat

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Jain, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The respondent, Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise Division, through an affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, stated that an investigation into GST returns revealed the petitioner supplied GST invoices involving Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 3.84 lakh to a firm found to be non-existent. This was observed to be an offence under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, making the petitioner liable for penalty for supplying invoices without actual supply of goods. The affidavit further clarified that there was no proposal to arrest the petitioner at that stage, and the respondents had not reached any conclusion about his possible arrest based on the investigation conducted.

Held

The Court noted the affidavit filed by the respondent, which stated that the GST investigation was completed, observing that the petitioner had supplied GST invoices involving ITC of Rs. 3.84 lakh to a non-existent firm, an offence under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017. Crucially, the affidavit also stated that there was no proposal to arrest the petitioner at that stage and no conclusion had been reached regarding his possible arrest. In light of this position, the Court held that the petition seeking anticipatory bail had become infructuous. The Court disposed of the petition as such. However, it clarified that if the petitioner were to be arrested at a later stage in the present case, he should be afforded one week's prior notice before his arrest is effected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is liable for penalty under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, for allegedly supplying GST invoices involving Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 3.84 lakh to a non-existent firm without actual supply of goods. 2. Whether the petitioner is liable for arrest in connection with the aforementioned GST investigation. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment, but the filing of the petition itself indicates a concern regarding potential arrest. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, through an affidavit, stated that the investigation revealed the petitioner supplied GST invoices involving ITC of Rs. 3.84 lakh to a non-existent firm, constituting an offence under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, the respondent also submitted that there was no proposal to arrest the petitioner at that stage and no conclusion had been reached regarding his possible arrest.