HANUMANTHAPPA PATHRERA LAKSHMANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C .') for granting anticipatory bail. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent had issued notice/summons to the petitioner as per Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') summoning him to appear before the Authorized Officer finally on 12.05.2020 (before filing the petition and after filing the petition, another summon has been issued). Further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Om Traders, registered dealer under the provisions of the CGST Act and the SGST at Shivamogga, dealing in both ferrous and non- ferrous scrap. During his regular course of business, he has purchased goods from various registered and unregistered dealers and issued tax invoices as per law. He has collected the taxes and remitted to the Government as per the CGST and the SGST Act.

(2.) Further, it is contended that on 08.02.2020, the respondent has issued a summon to appear before an Officer by name D. Bhaskar at 3:15 p.m., and prior to that on the same day, the respondent has conducted inspection of the business premises and drawn a mahazar. Another notice issued by the respondent to appear before K. Venumadhava Reddy on 10.02.2020. The petitioner is ready to appear before the respondent and co-operate with the investigation. However, the respondent has already collected all the documents and completed their investigation and the petitioner has apprehended his arrest in the hands of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act. In case, if he is arrested and sent to judicial custody, he will be put into hardship and irreparable loss as he is having a old age mother and also a daughter and due to COVID-19 lockdown situation, his heath may affect. Even though, he has not committed any offence, there is likelihood of his arrest for the non-bailable offence. He is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court. The offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to offer any surety. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

(3.) Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, has filed written objections contending that the petitioner is an assessee under the CGST Act. Intelligence has been developed by the Officers of the respondent that the petitioner was engaged in availment of fake input tax credit i.e., availing of credit on the invoices received from the persons without actual supply of goods. Based upon the authorization given by the Competent Authority, summons have been issued to the petitioner to appear before the Officer as per Section 70 of the CGST Act. The power conferred on the Officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act is to summon any person to appear and produce document or examine before him. The inquiry is deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. In spite of issuing so many notices/summons, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Authority on various dates. The preliminary investigation revealed that the input tax credit is taken by the petitioner from the bogus entities. The petitioner is operating from rented premises and his whereabouts were not known to his neighbours. The respondent is authorized to conduct proceedings in terms of Section 67 of the CGST Act. Neither the petitioner nor his authorized person approached the respondent till 03.03.2020. The whereabouts of the petitioner is not known. The petitioner is a habitual offender, he may commit same offence and he is deliberately avoiding his appearance for the purpose of enquiry proceedings. His bail petition filed before the City Civil and Sessions Judge came to be dismissed. If the bail is granted to the petitioner, he will destroy the evidentiary material and other documents. The anticipatory bail is not maintainable and it is pre-matured. In similar cases, the Telangana High Court has dismissed the petitions in P.V.Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India in Writ Petition Nos.4764, 4769, 4892, 5074, 5130, 5329, 6952 and 7583 of 2019, dated 18.04.2019 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed P.V.Ramana Reddy's case in the case of Union of India vs. Sapna Jain and Others in SLP (CRL.)Nos.4322-4324/2019, dated 29.05.2019 and hence, prayed for dismissing the bail petition.