Nikhil Liladhar Patkar And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court granted transit anticipatory bail to the applicants for a period of four weeks. The reasoning was based on a consideration of the submissions made by both sides and the prevailing pandemic situation. The Court found that granting this limited protection would enable the applicants to approach the appropriate court for appropriate relief. The ratio decidendi is that in circumstances of a pandemic and where an individual is seeking to approach the correct forum for relief after receiving summons for tax evasion inquiries, transit anticipatory bail can be granted for a specified period. The operative direction was that in the event of arrest in connection with the specified summons, the applicants were to be released on bail upon executing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with sureties. The application was disposed of with this interim protection.

Facts

The applicants, Nikhil Liladhar Patkar and Vishal Bhikhabhai Rathod, sought transit anticipatory bail from the Bombay High Court. They apprehended arrest in connection with multiple summons issued by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise between March 3, 2021, and June 11, 2021. These summons related to an inquiry into alleged evasion of CGST and SGST by the applicants or their company, M/s. Asterpetal Trade and Services Private Limited. The applicants, residing in Mumbai, requested a six-week protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. due to the prevailing pandemic, to allow them to approach the appropriate court for relief. They cited previous orders granting similar relief in inquiries initiated by the Superintendent, CGST, Gandhinagar.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to transit anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to summons issued by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise for alleged tax evasion, considering the pandemic situation? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that due to the ongoing pandemic, they require reasonable time to approach the appropriate court for relief. They relied on several orders passed by the High Court granting similar protection in cases involving inquiries by CGST authorities. Revenue's Arguments: Respondent No. 2 contended that the applicants had not responded to the summons and that the protection sought was merely to delay their appearance before the concerned authority. They expressed concern that the applicants might tamper with evidence.