Ritesh Ramniklal Parmar And Anr. vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.

Held

The Court granted transit anticipatory bail to the applicants. It acknowledged the factual aspects presented by the applicants, including their apprehension of arrest and the prevailing pandemic situation. The Court noted that Applicant No. 2 was suffering from COVID-19 and was quarantined. Considering these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to grant temporary protection to enable the applicants to approach the appropriate court for further relief. The bail was granted on the condition of executing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. Applicant No. 1 was granted protection for four weeks, and Applicant No. 2 for six weeks. The Court explicitly stated that the application was not adjudicated on merits. The applicants were also directed to file an affidavit of service.

Facts

This is an application for transit anticipatory bail filed by Ritesh Ramniklal Parmar and Dhaval Dhiraj Chhaya. The applicants were issued summons dated 05.04.2021, 03.03.2021, 06.03.2021, and 10.03.2021 by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion), CGST, Gandhi Nagar. The summons were issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 1944, read with erstwhile Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1995, and Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in connection with an inquiry regarding evasion of CGST/SGST. The applicants expressed apprehension of arrest during the inquiry and sought protection due to the prevailing pandemic situation, requesting reasonable time to approach the appropriate court. Applicant No. 2 also submitted that he was suffering from COVID-19 and quarantined.

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, 1944, read with other relevant provisions, given their apprehension of arrest during an inquiry into alleged evasion of GST. Contentions of the Applicants: The applicants argued that they were likely to be arrested during the inquiry and sought protection. They also submitted that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they required a reasonable period to approach the appropriate court for relief. Applicant No. 2 specifically mentioned his COVID-19 diagnosis and quarantine. Contentions of the Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the State-Respondent or the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents.