Anant Bansal And Another vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not maintainable when summons have been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court reasoned that Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to authorize arrest under specific circumstances, and in such cases, Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as no First Information Report (FIR) is registered. The Supreme Court, in State of Gujarat Vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, affirmed that when a person is summoned under Section 69 for recording their statement, anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not permissible. The Court found no significant difference between summons issued under Section 69 and Section 70, as Section 70 pertains to summoning a person for evidence or documents in an inquiry, and the principle prohibiting anticipatory bail in such situations applies equally. The judgments relied upon by the applicants, Mahdoom Bava and Priya Indoria, were deemed not applicable to the present case. The Court concluded that the applicants' remedy lies in invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for protection against pre-trial arrest.

Facts

The applicants, Anant Bansal and Nikhil Bansal, sought anticipatory bail in response to summons issued by the DGGI, Lucknow Zonal Unit, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The summons relate to an inquiry following a search and inspection of their business premises, M/s Meenakshi Re-rollers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Meenakshi Metal Industries LLP, Jhansi. During the search on March 13-14, 2024, a significant quantity of unfinished and finished goods (5455 tons) was detained. The applicants questioned the accuracy of the weighing process, alleging it was an eye-estimation and not physically possible within 22 hours. They requested physical re-verification, which was scheduled. However, they continued to receive summons, leading to a reasonable apprehension of coercive steps or arrest. The applicants claimed to be cooperative and have no criminal antecedents.

Key Issues

1. Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable when summons have been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that the summons issued under Section 70, coupled with the department's actions, created a reasonable apprehension of arrest. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Priya Indoria Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. to support their claim for anticipatory bail. Revenue's Arguments: The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) raised a preliminary objection, contending that an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable when only summons have been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. They cited State of Gujarat etc. Vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, P.V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union of India and Ors., and Directorate General of GST Intelligence Vs. Chaman Goel and Ors., along with a coordinate bench judgment in Govind Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.