Pratik Bharatbhai Patel And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Held

The Court granted transit anticipatory bail to the applicants. The Court considered the factual aspects presented and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. It was observed that protection could be granted for a temporary period to enable the applicants to approach the appropriate court for appropriate relief. The Court explicitly stated that the application was not adjudicated on merits. The transit anticipatory bail was granted for a temporary period of four weeks. The applicants were directed to execute 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 aforementioned summons. The applicants were also required to file an affidavit of service on record. The application was disposed of.

Facts

The applicants, Mr. Pratik Bharatbhai Patel and Mr. Hardik Indravadan Gandhi, filed an application for transit anticipatory bail. This application was in connection with summons dated April 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, March 5, 2021, and March 10, 2021, issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gandhi Nagar. The summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with other provisions, for an inquiry into alleged evasion of CGST/SGST and contravention of rules. The applicants expressed apprehension of arrest during the inquiry and sought reasonable time to approach the appropriate court due to the pandemic. The Court had previously directed the applicants to serve the respondent, and service was acknowledged, 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 tax evasion. The applicants argued that the summons were issued repeatedly, and there was a possibility of their arrest during the inquiry. They contended that due to the prevailing pandemic situation, they required a reasonable period to approach the appropriate court to seek suitable relief. The applicants relied on the possibility of arrest as the basis for seeking anticipatory bail. The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent State of Maharashtra.