Aman Singh vs. Director General Goods And Service Tax Intelligence (Dggi) Raipur Zone Officer

Held

The Court held that the summon issued by the DGGI under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, is for routine investigation proceedings and cannot be considered an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court considered the respondent's submission that the inquiry by DGGI pertains to the same parties for whom proceedings were already initiated by the Chhattisgarh State GST authorities. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another, the Court noted that in cases of overlapping investigations, the authorities are to decide inter se which one shall continue. The Court found that the applicant's apprehension of arrest was not justified based on the nature of the summon. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application was disposed of as not maintainable.

Facts

The applicant, Aman Singh, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest for an offense under Section 132 of the CGGST Act. He had previously been summoned by the State GST authorities, and his anticipatory bail application in that matter was allowed by the High Court. Subsequently, the Director General, Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Raipur, issued a summon to the applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, leading to his current apprehension of arrest. The DGGI is the respondent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the current anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, is maintainable when the summon issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the DGGI is for routine investigation proceedings and not an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The applicant is apprehending arrest due to the summon issued by the DGGI, following a previous instance where he sought anticipatory bail against State GST summons. Respondent's Argument: The respondent argued that the summon is for routine investigation and not an arrest order. They relied on Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017, and the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another, stating that if an inquiry is already underway by another authority, the authorities should decide inter se who will continue. The respondent contended that the applicant has no locus to decide which authority should proceed and that the current application is devoid of a valid reason to believe arrest is imminent.