Ganga Ram vs. State Of Punjab And Anr

Held

The Court held that the criminal trial for offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017, and the arrest under Section 69 of the Act were without jurisdiction and lacked constitutional backing. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for 4 months and 14 days, and the trial would take time to conclude, especially due to the COVID-19 situation. The Court found that a moot question of law was involved regarding the stage of prosecution initiation under the Finance Act, the complaint was triable by a Magistrate, and the petitioner was not required for further custodial investigation. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds, surrendering his passport, and not leaving India without prior court permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Ganga Ram, a businessman, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail. He was implicated in a criminal complaint (A.C. No. 22 of 2020) registered under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amloh. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the matter was civil in nature with debatable liability, and a departmental communication indicated his tax liability and penalty were 'zero'. He had been in custody for 4 months and 14 days. The State counsel submitted that the alleged liability was Rs. 8.2 crore, potentially increasing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal trial for offences under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017, and the arrest under Section 69 of the Act are without jurisdiction and lack constitutional backing? The petitioner argued that the arrest under Section 69 was considered without jurisdiction in a cited case (CWP No. 8004 of 2020). He also relied on other orders of coordinate benches and his own court regarding similar issues. The petitioner further argued that the matter was civil in nature with debatable liability and that a departmental communication showed his liability as 'zero'. The State argued that the petitioner's liability was Rs. 8.2 crore and could increase, and submitted a custody certificate.