The State Of Gujarat Etc. vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc.
Held
The Supreme Court held that Section 438 of the CrPC cannot be invoked by a person summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, for recording their statement. The proper recourse for protection against pre-trial arrest in such a scenario is to invoke the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court found the High Court's impugned order to be unsatisfactory. It reasoned that the power to arrest under the GST Act is statutory and ordinarily, the Writ Court should not interfere with its exercise. The Court emphasized that respondents were expected to honor summons and appear for interrogation. While acknowledging the High Court's power to entertain applications for pre-arrest protection under Article 226, it stressed that such power should be exercised sparingly. The Court set aside the High Court's order but granted one final opportunity for the respondents to appear before the authorities for recording their statements. If they failed to appear, the authorities were empowered to proceed according to law. The Court also noted potential incongruities within Section 69 of the CGST Act concerning cognizable and non-cognizable offenses and the applicability of CrPC provisions.
Facts
The State of Gujarat appealed against an order of the High Court of Gujarat concerning summons issued to respondents under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, read with Section 145 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents, apprehending arrest, filed writ applications before the High Court. The High Court directed the concerned authority to complete the adjudicatory process within eight weeks and granted two additional weeks for the respondents to take necessary steps if they had apprehensions. The State contended that the respondents had not appeared for interrogation despite multiple summons, causing a five-year delay in the inquiry. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents' counsel could not assist the Court as clients were out of touch.
Key Issues
1. Whether a person summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, for recording their statement can invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for anticipatory bail? (Question of law) 2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the completion of the adjudicatory process within a specific timeframe and granting further time for the respondents to take steps, thereby interfering with the statutory power of arrest under the GST Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments (State of Gujarat): The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to honor summons and appear for interrogation, causing significant delay. They contended that the power to arrest under the GST Act is statutory and ordinarily, the Writ Court should not interfere with its exercise. They relied on Union of India vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal and Ors. to emphasize that statutory powers of arrest must be exercised on objective facts and that imposing conditions before arrest can render provisions ineffective. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through their writ applications, sought protection against pre-arrest. While their counsel could not provide detailed arguments, the initial filings indicated an apprehension of arrest. The High Court's order suggests the respondents were desirous of getting themselves assisted by the adjudicatory process.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 132, Section 67(10), Section 70(2), Section 41, Section 41A, Article 226, Section 438, Section 145, Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
A B C D E F G H 1139 THE STATE OF GUJARAT ETC. v. CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1963-64 of 2023) JULY 17, 2023 [J. B. PARDIWALA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.] Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.69 – Summons issued under – Invocation of s.438, CrPC by the person summoned – Impermissibility of – Held: If any person is summoned u/s.69, 2017 Act for the purpose of recording of his statement, the provision of s.438, Cr.PC cannot be invoked – The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pre-trial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court u/Art.226 – This is exactly what the respondents did in the present case – By filing criminal applications u/Art. 226 before the High Court, the respondents sought direction to the appellant not to arrest them in exercise of the power conferred by s.69(1), 2017 Act – This, in essence, was prayer for anticipatory bail – However, at the stage of summons, the person summoned cannot invoke s.438, CrPC – Power to arrest a person by an empowered authority under the GST Act is statutory in character and ordinarily the Writ Court should not interfere with exercise of such power – Impugned
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Supreme Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.