In a recent case, the Bombay High Court ( HC ) rejected the pre-arrest Bail apprehending arrest in respect of the offence punishable under Section 132 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in absence of a Corporation with the investigation.
Kamlesh Majithia, the applicant is a proprietor of ‘Riddhi-Siddhi Enterprises’ and has obtained GST registration. The applicant is a service provider and his proprietary concern has never carried out trading of any goods. The investigation is alleged to have been initiated against ‘Platinum Trading Company’, a proprietary concern of Nitin Ramchandra Bansode. During the investigation, Nitin Bansode disowned the concern, stating that he is not aware of the same. The allegation is that the third party or operator obtained the registration with the intent to utilize the Input Tax Credit (ITC).
It was alleged that Salimullah Khan had made certain statements alleging that the applicant had handed over the documents to him. The applicant stated that he had no concern with Salimullah Khan or for that matter with ‘Platinum Trading Company’.
After the arrest of Salimullah Khan, the Assistant commissioner of sale tax issued a summons to the applicant requiring his presence in its office. The applicant applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court granted interim relief to the application by an order dated 13/6/2022.
It was contended by the applicant that the offence under the MGST Act is punishable with a maximum punishment of 5 years and is compoundable. Further argued that only based on some WhatsApp messages which have no evidentiary value and statements of the accused that the applicant is being implicated.
Justice M S Karnik viewed that the matter needs to be investigated thoroughly by the first respondent. The applicant must cooperate with the investigation. The Court found that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation and is even not willing to attend under the issuance of the witness summons.
It was viewed by the Court that the present application is premature and the apprehension that the applicant will be arrested without following due procedure of law is unfounded. The applicant was called upon to remain present and to cooperate with the enquiry as a witness.
Further held that after recording the statement, if the first respondent had reason to believe that the arrest is imperative, the applicant may at that stage have an apprehension that he is likely to be arrested. It is open for the applicant to apply for anticipatory bail at the appropriate stage. The Court rejected the present application which was premature.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
