Nikit Mittal vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue

Facts

The petitioner, Nikit Mittal, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the issuance of a warrant of arrest following the issuance of summons. The petitioner's counsel argued that in similar circumstances, a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court had directed petitioners to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer when called. The court had further directed that upon their first appearance, they would not be arrested, as provided under Sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents' counsel did not controvert this submission.

Held

The Court held that the case of the present writ petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 21.02.2019, passed in W.P.(Cr.) No.415 of 2018. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer as and when called upon. The Senior Intelligence Officer was directed not to arrest the petitioner on their first day of appearance and to provide them with a fair opportunity of hearing in the matter. The ratio decidendi is that when a case is factually identical to a prior ruling by a co-ordinate bench, the High Court should follow that precedent to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting judgments, particularly in matters concerning statutory rights and procedural safeguards under the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from arrest upon their first appearance before the Senior Intelligence Officer, in light of the provisions of Section 69 read with Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the precedent set by a co-ordinate bench of this Court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that their case is squarely covered by a previous order of a co-ordinate bench dated 21.02.2019 in W.P.(Cr.) No.415 of 2018 and analogous cases. This order, according to the petitioner, directed that in similar factual situations, petitioners should appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer when summoned and would not be arrested on their first appearance, citing Section 69 read with Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. Respondents' Argument: The respondents' counsel did not controvert the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.