Amit Kumar Shukla VS Union of India

The petitioner seeks relief through multiple prayers in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Firstly, the petitioner requests the court to declare section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 unconstitutional, invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This section is challenged on grounds of violating the right to equality under Article 14, suggesting it discriminates or is arbitrary in its application.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks a writ to clarify that the power of arrest under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 should only be exercised after a proper assessment or determination of liability. This prayer aims to ensure that arrests are made only after due process and not arbitrarily.

Thirdly, pending the final disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner requests interim or ad-interim bail concerning a specific case (V/PI/RGD/Gr-II/19-29/DGARM/19-21) currently before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, Raigad. This is sought to secure the petitioner’s liberty during the pendency of the case.

Fourthly, the petitioner asks the court to direct the respondents (likely the government or tax authorities) to take necessary action in connection with the aforementioned case to de-attach the petitioner’s bank account held at the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. This prayer aims to protect the petitioner’s financial interests pending the resolution of the legal proceedings.

Lastly, the petitioner seeks an injunction to restrain the respondents from taking any further coercive action against them. This is a preventive measure to avoid any additional adverse actions during the legal proceedings.

In essence, the petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of a specific provision of the Central Goods and Services Act, seeking procedural safeguards in arrest procedures, requesting bail in a pending case, safeguarding their bank account, and preventing further coercive actions by the authorities. These prayers collectively aim to protect the petitioner’s rights and interests under the Indian Constitution and relevant laws.

The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Vijay Ispat and a director of M/s. Sushimita Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., along with his wife, has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various reliefs. The primary grounds for the petition are related to alleged unconstitutional provisions and procedural issues under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

Firstly, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, arguing that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The provision allows for arrest without proper assessment or determination of liability, which the petitioner contends is arbitrary and discriminatory.

Secondly, the petitioner seeks a directive that the power of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act should only be exercised after a proper assessment and determination of liability. This is to ensure procedural fairness and to prevent arbitrary use of arrest powers.

Thirdly, pending the final disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner requests interim or ad-interim bail in connection with a specific case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel, Raigad.

Additionally, the petitioner seeks orders to de-attach a bank account maintained with the Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., which has been attached in connection with the investigation.

Furthermore, the petitioner requests the court to restrain the respondents (government authorities) from taking any further coercive action or initiating criminal prosecution against him in connection with the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner also asks for dispensation of the requirement to submit an affidavit, citing the current judicial custody status.

Lastly, the petitioner requests any other orders that the court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

The background to these requests stems from an investigation initiated by the respondents based on specific intelligence regarding the petitioner’s businesses. Statements were recorded from the petitioner on various matters related to business activities and compliance with regulatory requirements under the CGST Act.

Overall, the writ petition seeks judicial intervention to protect the petitioner’s rights and ensure fair procedural treatment under the law, challenging certain provisions of the CGST Act and seeking relief from ongoing legal actions and potential coercive measures by the respondents.

The petitioner, involved in the operations of M/s. Vijay Ispat and M/s. Sushmita Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., faces legal action under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The issues raised in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge several actions taken by the authorities. Firstly, the petitioner seeks the declaration and striking down of Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing for equality before the law. Secondly, the petition requests clarification that powers of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act should only be exercised after a proper assessment of tax liability. Pending the resolution of the writ petition, the petitioner seeks interim or ad-interim bail in connection with ongoing judicial proceedings and requests the release of a bank account that has been attached by authorities.

The petitioner contends that the investigation initiated on March 11, 2021, based on specific intelligence, and subsequent actions including summoning under Section 70 of the CGST Act and arrest on March 23, 2021, are unjustified. The recorded statements allege involvement in fraudulent practices related to Goods and Services Tax (GST) invoices and input tax credit (ITC). Despite attempts to secure bail, the petitioner remains in judicial custody since March 24, 2021, after a bail application was rejected on March 31, 2021. The attachment of the company’s bank account further adds to the petitioner’s grievances.

The petitioner asserts compliance with tax filing requirements and portrays themselves as a law-abiding citizen unfairly targeted by coercive actions and criminal prosecution without proper assessment of liability. Hence, the prayer in the writ petition seeks relief from ongoing coercive actions, including arrest and asset attachment, and requests the court’s intervention to ensure fair treatment under the law. The petition also seeks any other suitable relief the court deems fit given the circumstances of the case.

The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s. Vijay Ispat and a director of M/s. Sushmita Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., along with his wife, is seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenges various actions taken under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), specifically targeting Section 132(1)(b) and the power of arrest under Section 69 of the Act.

The petitioner alleges that the arrest and subsequent detention are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law. The basis for these claims stems from an investigation initiated by the respondents based on specific intelligence. During the investigation on March 11, 2021, various allegations were made regarding fraudulent activities related to Goods and Services Tax (GST) compliance and Input Tax Credit (ITC).

On March 23, 2021, the petitioner was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and subsequently, his statement was recorded where he admitted certain facts pertaining to the operations of the businesses involved. The same day, he was arrested under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act without prior notice or the opportunity for a hearing. He has since been in judicial custody, with his application for bail being denied on March 31, 2021.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the arrest was unlawful, asserting that there was no registered offense nor any show-cause notice served before the arrest. They contend that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who regularly files tax returns and that the actions of the respondents are arbitrary and lacking in legal basis.

The writ petition seeks several reliefs including:

1. Declaration of Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act as unconstitutional under Article 14.

2. Limiting the power of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act to cases following proper assessment of liability.

3. Granting interim bail to the petitioner pending the final disposal of the writ petition.

4. Directing the respondents to release the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account.

5. Restraining further coercive actions or criminal prosecutions against the petitioner.

6. Dispensing with the petitioner’s need to file an affidavit due to his current judicial custody.

7. Any other appropriate orders the court deems fit in the circumstances.

The petitioner cites a precedent where a similar case resulted in bail being granted, arguing for parity in treatment. They emphasize that the investigation lacks concrete evidence and proper procedural adherence, urging for immediate relief on grounds of personal liberty and procedural fairness.

In conclusion, the petition raises fundamental constitutional issues concerning procedural fairness, arbitrary use of state power, and the need for safeguarding personal liberties in the face of tax enforcement measures. The court is called upon to adjudicate these issues and provide appropriate relief in the interest of justice.

The case presented revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is involved in business through entities like M/s. Vijay Ispat and M/s. Sushimita Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner seeks various reliefs primarily stemming from actions taken under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Initially, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, which pertains to arrest powers, citing violation of Article 14 of the Constitution (equality before law). Additionally, the petitioner seeks a directive that arrest powers under Section 69 of the CGST Act can only be exercised after proper assessment of tax liability. Pending the petition’s disposal, the petitioner requests interim bail related to ongoing legal proceedings and requests the de-attachment of a bank account.

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Vijay Ispat and a nominal director of M/s. Sushimita Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., was subject to investigation based on specific intelligence in March 2021. The investigation raised allegations of fraudulent GST claims and non-existent business premises. Statements recorded during the investigation imply involvement in tax evasion schemes. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act and has since been in judicial custody following a rejected bail application.

The petitioner argues innocence, emphasizing compliance with tax filing and the automatic generation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the GST portal. The defense highlights the lack of specific charges or notices preceding the arrest, claiming illegal detention and seeking immediate release. Reference is made to a precedent where similar circumstances led to bail being granted.

In contrast, the revenue authorities assert the petitioner’s pivotal role in an alleged conspiracy involving fraudulent invoicing and fictitious business addresses. Investigations revealed empty premises and absence of statutory records, supporting claims of fraudulent activities.

The case underscores constitutional rights, procedural fairness in tax enforcement, and the balance between revenue collection and individual liberties. It awaits adjudication on the merits of the allegations, the constitutionality of arrest provisions, and the immediate relief sought by the petitioner.

Ultimately, the outcome hinges on judicial interpretation of constitutional principles and statutory provisions governing tax enforcement, impacting not only the petitioner’s personal liberty but also broader legal precedents in tax law.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: