Akshay Chhabra VS Union of India

The case at hand involves two writ petitions where Mr. Ponda and Mr. Jagtiani, senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Mishra, counsel for the respondents, presented their arguments. The petitions seek several reliefs:

1. Declaration of section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) as unconstitutional.

2. Declaration that power under section 69 can only be exercised upon determination of liability and subsequent failure of the taxable person to meet such liability.

3. Restraining the respondents from filing any criminal complaints against the petitioners.

4. Granting bail to the petitioners on appropriate terms and conditions.

The petitioners were arrested by the respondents under section 69 of the CGST Act on 16.02.2021. The key facts for adjudication are as follows:

Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha is the petitioner in writ petition (st) No. 5484 of 2021, and Mr. Akshay Chhabra is the petitioner in writ petition (st) No. 5486 of 2021. Mr. Chhabra serves as the chairman cum managing director of One Point One Solutions Ltd (referred to as the petitioner company), located at International Infotech Park, Vashi. Mr. Jha holds the position of Chief Financial Officer in the petitioner company.

The petitioner company is involved in providing business process outsourcing (BPO) services to various clients, including customer support, consultancy, healthcare, and retailing. It is listed on the National Stock Exchange and employs over 5000 individuals.

On 17.09.2020, respondent No. 2 conducted a search and seizure operation at the office premises of the petitioner company. Subsequently, summons dated 24.09.2020 were issued to Mr. Jha, requesting evidence and purchase invoices from seven companies, including Siddharh.

These facts lay the groundwork for the legal arguments surrounding the constitutionality of certain sections of the CGST Act and the actions taken by the respondents against the petitioners. The case involves intricate discussions on tax liability, due process, and the powers of taxation authorities.

The case at hand involves two writ petitions wherein Mr. Ponda and Mr. Jagtiani, esteemed senior counsel for the petitioners, along with Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, have presented their arguments. The petitions seek several declarations and reliefs, including challenging the constitutionality of sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), asserting that the power under section 69 can only be exercised upon the determination of liability, and restraining the respondents from lodging criminal complaints against the petitioners, among others.

On 16th February 2021, the two petitioners were arrested by the respondents under section 69 of the CGST Act. To understand the context better, it’s crucial to delve into the facts surrounding the case:

1. The first petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, is associated with writ petition (st) No. 5484 of 2021, while Mr. Akshay Chhabra is the petitioner in writ petition (st) No. 5486 of 2021. Mr. Chhabra serves as the chairman cum managing director of One Point One Solutions Ltd, referred to as the petitioner company, which operates out of International Infotech Park, Vashi. Mr. Jha holds the position of Chief Financial Officer within the petitioner company. The company specializes in providing business process outsourcing (BPO) services across various sectors, boasting a workforce exceeding 5000 employees.

2. On 17th September 2020, respondent No. 2 conducted a search and seizure operation at the petitioner company’s office premises, followed by the issuance of summons to Mr. Jha on 24th September 2020. The summons requested evidence and purchase invoices from seven companies, with which the petitioner company had engaged in transactions over the fiscal years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20.

3. Subsequently, on 30th September 2020, the petitioner submitted the requested purchase invoices and agreements concerning Mystique Media Pvt Ltd.

4. Another search and seizure operation occurred on 18th November 2020, conducted by respondent No. 3 at the Vashi and Pawne office premises of the petitioner company, along with the residential premises of Mr. Akshay Chhabra. Despite the company operating at 50% staff capacity due to COVID-19 restrictions, respondent No. 2 seized documents belonging to the petitioner company on that day.

In the midst of these events, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha provided his statement to the respondents.

The petitioners argue against the legality of their arrest under section 69 of the CGST Act and seek relief through the aforementioned prayers. The case rests on the interpretation of relevant sections of the CGST Act, the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure operations, and the constitutional validity of the provisions under challenge. The court’s decision will have implications not only for the petitioners but also for the broader interpretation and application of tax laws and procedural safeguards under the CGST Act.

The case revolves around two writ petitions filed by Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Akshay Chhabra, who are represented by Mr. Ponda, Mr. Jagtiani, and Mr. Mishra, learned counsels. The petitions aim to challenge the constitutionality of sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), among other prayers.

Mr. Chhabra serves as the chairman cum managing director of One Point One Solutions Ltd, referred to as the petitioner company. This company, located at International Infotech Park, Vashi, engages in providing business process outsourcing (BPO) services to various clients, employing over 5000 individuals.

The legal battle ensued following a series of events. Firstly, on September 17, 2020, respondent No. 2 conducted a search and seizure operation at the petitioner company’s office premises, subsequently issuing summonses to Mr. Jha for evidence submission regarding purchase invoices of seven companies. These companies had engaged in transactions with the petitioner company.

Later, on September 30, 2020, Mr. Jha provided the requested purchase invoices and agreements related to Mystique Media Pvt Ltd. However, on November 18, 2020, another search and seizure operation occurred at the petitioner company’s Vashi and Pawne office premises and Mr. Chhabra’s residential premises.

Amidst the COVID-19 restrictions, Mr. Jha and Mr. Chhabra cooperated with the authorities, with their statements being recorded on November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2021, respectively. Additionally, the bank account of the petitioner company was attached by respondent No. 2.

Further statements were recorded on February 1, 2021, including that of Mr. Akashanand Karnik, a director of the petitioner company. Subsequently, on February 3, 2021, respondent No. 2 recorded Mr. Chhabra’s statement.

Amidst these proceedings, another search and seizure operation was conducted on February 4, 2021, at the Turbhe office of the petitioner company. Allegations surfaced regarding the mistreatment of employees, including female staff being detained until early morning hours on February 5, 2021.

Consequently, on February 5, 2021, Ms. Biji Shivprasad, an employee of the petitioner company, had her statement recorded. The petitioners raised concerns regarding the harassment faced by the company’s employees, bringing it to the attention of respondent No. 2.

The writ petitions seek relief against the actions taken under the CGST Act, asserting violations of fundamental rights and procedural improprieties. The court is tasked with adjudicating upon these complex legal and procedural matters, with implications for both the petitioners and the respondents.

The case at hand involves two writ petitions brought forth by Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Akshay Chhabra, represented by their respective senior counsel, Mr. Ponda and Mr. Jagtiani, alongside Mr. Mishra, who serves as counsel for the respondents. The petitions center around several prayers, including the declaration of certain sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) as unconstitutional, clarification on the exercise of power under section 69 of the CGST Act, and restraining the respondents from initiating criminal complaints against the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners seek bail under suitable terms and conditions.

The petitioners, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Akshay Chhabra, are associated with One Point One Solutions Ltd, a company engaged in business process outsourcing services, with Mr. Chhabra serving as the chairman cum managing director. The company operates with over 5000 employees and is listed on the National Stock Exchange.

The events leading to the petitions stem from search and seizure operations conducted by the respondents on the premises of One Point One Solutions Ltd. Subsequent summons were issued to Mr. Jha to provide evidence and invoices for transactions with seven specific companies for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The company complied by providing relevant documents, but further search and seizure operations were conducted in November 2020, resulting in the seizure of additional documents.

Statements were recorded from Mr. Jha and Mr. Chhabra on various occasions, accompanied by further search and seizure operations. Allegations of harassment towards company employees during these operations were brought to the attention of the respondents, but subsequent operations were still carried out. These operations included inquiries into the company’s premises and transactions, with demands for documentation dating back to 2014.

The recording of statements continued into February 2021, with multiple sessions involving both Mr. Jha and Mr. Chhabra. These events culminated in the arrest of the petitioners on February 16, 2021, under section 69 of the CGST Act.

The petitions challenge the legality and constitutionality of the actions taken by the respondents, alleging harassment, arbitrary exercise of power, and violation of fundamental rights. The court will adjudicate on these matters, considering the arguments presented by both parties.

The case at hand involves two writ petitions brought before the court. The petitioners are represented by Mr. Ponda and Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior counsel, while Mr. Mishra serves as counsel for the respondents. The petitions seek several declarations and reliefs, including the constitutionality of certain sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), restrictions on the exercise of power under section 69, and restraining the respondents from lodging criminal complaints against the petitioners, along with seeking bail.

The petitioners, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. Akshay Chhabra, are associated with One Point One Solutions Ltd., a company engaged in providing business process outsourcing services. Following a search and seizure operation by the respondents, various documents and statements were requested from the petitioners regarding transactions with seven specific companies. Subsequent operations and statements were conducted, with further seizures and interrogations, culminating in the arrest of the petitioners under section 69 of the CGST Act on February 16, 2021.

Despite cooperation and payments made by the petitioners, they were remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, with their bail application ultimately rejected. The petitioners claim to have made payments under protest to demonstrate their bona fides.

Previously, the petitioner company and some officials filed another writ petition (st) No. 4557/2021, resulting in a court order on February 25, 2021, directing against coercive actions on the officials.

The case presents a complex web of events involving legal, procedural, and constitutional questions regarding taxation laws and the rights of the petitioners. The court will need to adjudicate on the validity of the arrests, the legality of the actions taken by the respondents, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the CGST Act. Additionally, the court must assess the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the respondents and consider the petitioners’ claims of harassment and unfair treatment.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Bombay High Court 

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: