Neeraj Kasyap vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The applicant, Neeraj Kasyap, filed an anticipatory bail application seeking protection from arrest following a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Superintendent of CGST, Greater Noida. The applicant contended that he had made genuine purchases from M/s. G.K. Traders against valid invoices and was being threatened with arrest. The revenue authorities are conducting an inquiry against M/s. G.K. Traders concerning forged/false invoices. The applicant was summoned to ascertain the genuineness of the invoices he relied upon from M/s. G.K. Traders. The applicant claimed to have made genuine purchases, paid for them, and sold the goods to third parties.

Held

The Court held that at present, there is no material basis for the applicant's apprehension of arrest. While the GST authorities possess the power to arrest, mere participation in an inquiry against M/s. G.K. Traders does not automatically entail the applicant's arrest. The applicant's presence was required to provide evidence and relevant documents to establish the genuineness of his transactions. The Court reasoned that even if some invoices from M/s. G.K. Traders were found to be bogus, it would not necessarily lead to an accusation against the applicant or his arrest unless the revenue authorities could establish that the applicant had benefited from fake invoices or acted in collusion. As no such inference was being drawn by the revenue authorities against the applicant at that stage, and the applicant claimed genuine purchases and payments, the Court found no real apprehension of arrest. The ratio is that a summons for inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act, without any material suggesting benefit from fake invoices or collusion, does not, by itself, create a reasonable apprehension of arrest justifying anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has a reasonable apprehension of arrest warranting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning M/s. G.K. Traders. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that his purchases were valid and genuine, and he was being summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, despite making legitimate transactions. He relied on a previous decision of the High Court dated 05.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4116 of 2020, suggesting a precedent for granting anticipatory bail in similar circumstances. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or opposite party. However, it acknowledges that an inquiry is pending against M/s. G.K. Traders regarding forged/false invoices, and the applicant's presence is required to establish the genuineness of the invoices he used.