Jeyasankar.K vs. The Senior Intelligence Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, K. Jeyasankar, a partner and director of fireworks companies, was arrested on February 17, 2021, by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Sections 9 and 9A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner challenged the arrest memo and sought release from custody. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was granted interim bail. The petitioner had remitted Rs. 2,67,39,619/- towards tax dues. The conditions of bail were initially strict, requiring the petitioner to stay within Madurai Corporation limits and appear daily before the first respondent, but were later relaxed. The petitioner stated that the investigation was ongoing and reserved the right to challenge any future prosecution.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner had been arrested and in custody for approximately six days. The petitioner had also remitted a substantial amount of Rs. 2,67,39,619/- towards tax dues, which was considered for granting bail. The Court observed that re-arresting the petitioner would serve no purpose. Consequently, the interim bail previously granted was made absolute. The condition for the petitioner to appear before the respondents twice a week was also relaxed, with the petitioner undertaking to appear as and when required. The Court explicitly left open all contentions of both parties, indicating that the merits of the classification of the offence under Section 132(1)(a) or 132(1)(e) of the CGST Act were not decided. The primary relief granted was the confirmation of bail and relaxation of conditions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the arrest of the petitioner was justified under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, or if the alleged conduct falls under Section 132(1)(e) of the same Act, which is a non-cognizable offence? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that their case should have been classified under Section 132(1)(e) of the CGST Act, 2017, which pertains to non-cognizable offences, implying the arrest was not warranted under the more serious Section 132(1)(a). Revenue's contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments regarding the classification of the offence. However, their action of arresting the petitioner under Section 132(1)(a) indicates their stance that the offence was cognizable and justified the arrest.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(a), Section 132(1)(e), Section 9, Section 9A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner herein was arrested on 17.02.2021 for the 1/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2 W.P.(MD)NO.3855 OF 2021 offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 9 and 9A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The arrest memo was put to challenge in the writ petition. The core argument of the petitioner's counsel was that the case of the petitioner would fall only under Section 132(1)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 which is a non-cognizable offence.
Be that as it may in view of the grant of interim bail by this Court, the principal challenge may no longer survive. The fact remains that the petitioner was arrested and was in custody for about six days. The petitioner has also remitted a sum of Rs.2,67,39,619/- towards tax dues which aspect was taken note of for granting bail. The petitioner was also directed to stay within the Corporation limits of Madurai and appear before the first respondent daily. This condition was subsequently relaxed. Presently the petitioner is appearing before the first respondent twice a week.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the investigation by the respondents does not appear to be over. As and when the respondents decide to prosecute, the petitioner may be given liberty to question the same in the manner known to law.
Since I am of the view that re-arrest of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose, interim bail earlier granted to the petitioner is made absolute. The condition imposed by this Court to appear before the respondents twice a week is also relaxed and the petitioner undertakes before this Court that he would appear before the authority concerned as and when required.
Leaving open all the contentions of both the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Assistant Registrar (CSII) //// / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. 2/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3 W.P.(MD)NO.3855 OF 2021 To:
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Madurai Regional Unit, No.4, Sri Lakshmi Complex, P & T Nagar Main Road, Madurai – 625 014. 2. The Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Coimbatore Zonal Unit, 155, Lakshmanan Street, Ukkadam, Coimbatore 641 001. 3. The Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.
The Jailer, Melur Sub-Jail, Melur, Madurai District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-7208[F],SR-13595[F] dated 25/02/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.JAIKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-13343[F] dated 24/03/2021 ) W.P.(MD)No.3855 of 2021 24.03.2021
TP(CO) KB(23.04.2021) 3P 7C
3/5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.