Pulkit Purnachandra Mehta And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court granted transit anticipatory bail to the applicants. The Court acknowledged the factual aspects presented by the applicants' counsel, including the issuance of multiple summons and the apprehension of arrest. It was noted that the application was not adjudicated on merits. The Court reasoned that granting temporary protection would enable the applicants to approach the appropriate court for appropriate relief. The transit anticipatory bail was granted for a temporary period of four weeks. The operative directions included releasing the applicants on bail upon executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount in the event of their arrest in connection with the specified summons. The applicants were also directed to file an affidavit of service. The issue of the merits of the GST evasion inquiry was expressly left undecided.

Facts

This case involves an application for transit anticipatory bail filed by Pulkit Purnachandra Mehta and Hitendra Dinesh Pansuriya. The applicants received multiple summons dated April 5, 2021, March 3, 2021, March 6, 2021, and March 10, 2021, issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gandhi Nagar. These summons were issued in connection with an inquiry into alleged evasion of CGST/SGST and contravention of relevant rules. The applicants expressed apprehension of arrest during the inquiry and sought protection to approach the appropriate court. The High Court had previously directed the applicants to serve the respondent, and proof of service was placed on record, though no one appeared for the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to transit anticipatory bail in connection with the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gandhi Nagar, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with other provisions, given their apprehension of arrest during the inquiry into alleged GST evasion? The applicants argued that they had received multiple summons and feared arrest during the ongoing inquiry. They contended that due to the prevailing pandemic situation, they required a reasonable period to approach the appropriate court for suitable relief. The applicants relied on the fact that summons had been issued repeatedly. The revenue or State did not present any arguments as no one appeared on their behalf.