Anmol Bindal vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Held

The Court observed that an inquiry was being conducted by the opposite party authorities. It was expected that the applicant would appear pursuant to the summons dated 02.09.2021. Subject to the applicant's cooperation, his arrest might not be enforced unless warranted for cogent reasons. The Court did not grant anticipatory bail in the traditional sense but disposed of the application with the observation that the inquiry should not be obstructed and that arrest would depend on cooperation and cogent reasons. The primary finding was that the inquiry was valid and the applicant was expected to cooperate, with a conditional expectation regarding arrest.

Facts

The applicant, Anmol Bindal, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a summons dated 02.09.2021 issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The summons followed a survey and seizure conducted in the case of the applicant's father, Anukul Bindal, who was arrested and later released on bail. The applicant contended that the summons was issued to harass his family, as no inquiry was pending against him. The revenue, represented by the informant's counsel, argued that incriminating material found during the survey indicated the applicant was operating a firm that made an illegal claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 1,38,75,994/-, necessitating his presence for the inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, when an inquiry is pending against him regarding alleged illegal ITC claims. Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued that the summons was issued with the intent to cause harassment to his family, as no direct inquiry was pending against him. He relied on the fact that his father, in whose case the survey and seizure were conducted, had already been enlarged on bail. Revenue's arguments: The State and the informant contended that incriminating material discovered during the survey indicated the applicant was involved in a firm that had made an illegal ITC claim of Rs. 1,38,75,994/-. They argued that the applicant's presence was necessary to complete the ongoing inquiry, and therefore, the inquiry should not be obstructed.