Rajat vs. State Of U.T. Chandigarh

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, making the interim order absolute. The Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation on several dates and had substantially complied with the requests for information and documents. The petitioner also undertook to continue cooperating with the investigation. The Court acknowledged the arguments presented by both sides, particularly the petitioner's submission regarding the applicability of the CGST Act and the pending appeal against the assessment order. However, the decision to grant bail was primarily based on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and the undertaking to continue doing so. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and did not constitute a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case, allowing the trial to proceed independently.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajat, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 391 dated 16.12.2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 461, and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station Sector-17, Chandigarh. The allegations against him involve generating sales invoices and receiving bogus purchase invoices since his GST registration. The petitioner argued that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically Section 328, provides for penal provisions for criminality, and the IPC provisions are not attracted. He also stated that his assessment proceedings under Section 21 of the UTGST Act, 2017, were finalized, and an appeal was filed, which was pending hearing. The petitioner had joined the investigation multiple times and responded to requests for documents. The respondent (State of U.T., Chandigarh) indicated that further information was required from the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are attracted to the alleged offences, or if the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (UTGST Act) exclusively govern the alleged conduct, specifically concerning the generation of sales invoices and receipt of bogus purchase invoices. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the alleged actions fall under the penal provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly Section 328, and therefore, the provisions of the IPC are not applicable. The petitioner also highlighted that assessment proceedings under Section 21 of the UTGST Act, 2017, were finalized, and an appeal was filed against the said order, which was pending. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (State of U.T., Chandigarh) submitted that while the petitioner had joined the investigation, further information was still required from him, and he should continue to cooperate with the investigation.