Neha Agrawal And Anr vs. The Superintendent Anto-Evasion, CGST Mumbai Central And Anr

Held

The Court acknowledged that the matter was at the preliminary investigation stage and no final opinion had been formed by the authorized officer regarding the arrest of the applicants. Considering this, the Court found that issuing a direction for the applicants to cooperate would subserve the interest of justice. The Court also stipulated that if the Investigating Officer felt an arrest was imperative, they could effect the arrest after providing 72 hours' notice to the applicants. The applicants, on instructions, undertook to appear on specific dates and thereafter as and when called. The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application with a direction to the applicants to cooperate.

Facts

The applicants, Neha Agrawal and another, filed an anticipatory bail application before the Bombay High Court. The Goods and Services Tax Department alleged that the applicants had committed an offence under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by fraudulently availing input tax credit. This offence is cognizable and punishable with imprisonment. The department stated that the matter was at the investigation stage, and they were yet to decide whether to proceed against the applicants. The applicants claimed to have receipts proving no fraudulent availment of input tax credit and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in light of the ongoing investigation into alleged fraudulent availment of input tax credit under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act, 2017? Arguments for the applicants: The applicants contended that they possessed receipts demonstrating that the input tax credit was not fraudulently availed. They expressed their willingness to cooperate fully with the authorities and produce all relevant invoices and materials in their possession. They sought anticipatory bail due to apprehension of arrest. Arguments for the revenue (Respondent No. 1): The Superintendent, Anti-Evasion, CGST Mumbai Central, argued that the matter was still under preliminary investigation. They stated that the authorities were in the process of satisfying themselves whether to proceed against the applicants. They also submitted that the applicants were not cooperating and not placing materials on record when called upon to do so.