Milind Gopalji Bhinde vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

Held

The Court disposed of the anticipatory bail application by directing the respondent CGST authorities to issue a 72-hour notice to the applicant before taking any coercive steps against him. The Court also directed the applicant to cooperate and appear before the respondent as and when directed. The respondent was further directed to comply with Section 69 of the CGST Act. The applicant was scheduled to appear on November 28, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., and thereafter as and when called. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the merits of the allegations but provided a procedural safeguard for the applicant. The core principle established is that in cases where an individual's role is under examination and they apprehend arrest, a High Court can direct authorities to provide advance notice before coercive action, ensuring an opportunity for the individual to respond or seek appropriate legal recourse.

Facts

The applicant, Milind Gopalji Bhinde, sought anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court. He apprehended arrest in connection with a file of the CGST Department, Navi Mumbai, for an alleged offense under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant was issued a summons by the CGST authorities based on allegations made by an arrested co-accused in a case involving fraudulent availment of input tax credit without actual supply of goods. The applicant had previously appeared before the CGST authorities but now feared arrest. The CGST Department, in its reply to a prior anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court, stated that the applicant's role needed examination. The applicant's counsel argued that he had cooperated previously but now apprehended arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with allegations of fraudulent availment of input tax credit under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, given that his role is still under examination by the authorities? The applicant argued that he had previously appeared before the CGST authorities and apprehended arrest despite his cooperation. He sought protection from coercive action. The respondent CGST Department argued that the applicant was summoned based on allegations from an arrested co-accused and that the applicant's role required further examination. They contended that the applicant had not responded to the summons by filing an anticipatory bail application instead. The respondent also noted that the applicant was to cooperate and appear as directed and that the respondent would comply with Section 69 of the CGST Act.