Krishna Murari Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The Petitioner, Krishna Murari Singh, filed a Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, the exercise of power under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and seeking a declaration that his arrest was illegal. The Petitioner had been released on bail by a Division Bench on May 6, 2021, with specific conditions. This order was based on previous judgments in similar matters. Subsequently, the Court noted that the Petitioner was not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of the CGST Act provisions. The primary concern shifted to the protection of the Petitioner's liberty, with the Petitioner intending to approach the criminal court for bail.

Held

The Court noted that the Petitioner was not pressing the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act. Regarding the Petitioner's liberty and the challenge to the exercise of power under Section 69, the Court referred to the Nagpur Cable Operators Association decision, which distinguishes between civil and criminal writ petitions based on the potential for imprisonment. Since the Petitioner's primary concern was protection from arrest and the matter involved potential criminal proceedings, the Court found that the petition ought to have been filed as a criminal writ petition. However, acknowledging that the Petitioner intended to approach the criminal court for bail and had been on interim bail for approximately two years, the Court decided to continue the existing bail order for six weeks to enable the Petitioner to take necessary steps in the criminal court. The challenge to the constitutional validity was not pressed, and the issue of liberty was to be pursued in the appropriate criminal forum.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act are unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? The Petitioner argued for their unconstitutionality. The Respondent's arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether the power under Section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised upon determination of liability and a failure to pay such liability? The Petitioner contended for this limitation. The Respondent's arguments are not recorded. 3. Whether the arrest of the Petitioner is illegal? The Petitioner sought a declaration to this effect. The Respondent's arguments are not recorded. 4. Whether the Writ Petition, concerning liberty and potential imprisonment, should have been filed as a criminal writ petition instead of a civil writ petition, based on the Nagpur Cable Operators Association decision? The Court raised this procedural point.