Mukul Mittal vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence
Held
The Court noted that the respondent was unlikely to file a complaint within the stipulated 60 days for cognizance. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to default bail as a matter of right.
Facts
The petitioner sought regular bail after being arrested for offenses under the CGST Act. Allegations include involvement in a fake invoice racket with his brother, creating numerous fake firms without corresponding supply of goods and services.
Key Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail due to the respondent's inability to file a complaint within the statutory period.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(i)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2021 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
By the present petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail pursuant to the Arrest Memo dated 9th December, 2020 for offence punishable under Section 132 (1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner filed an anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge on 27.10.2020 where a statement was made that investigation from the petitioner is underway. Thereafter the petitioner appeared repeatedly for joining the investigation. The petitioner was arrested
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.