Amitkumar Rameshbhai Patel VS State of Gujarat

The petitioners in this case are facing potential detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) due to a complaint filed by the State Tax Department. This complaint, lodged in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Ahmedabad, involves allegations under various subsections of Section 132 of both the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GGST Act) and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, it includes charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal conspiracy.

In response to a notice issued by the court, it was revealed on June 15, 2021, that at least one of the petitioners had been implicated in the matter. This development underscores the serious legal predicament faced by the petitioners, as they confront both tax-related allegations and potential preventive detention under PASA, a stringent law aimed at curbing anti-social activities. The involvement of multiple legal provisions from different acts indicates the complexity and severity of the charges against the petitioners.

The petitioners faced potential detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) related to a complaint by the State Tax Department filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The complaint involved various violations under Section 132 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, and the Central GST Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses criminal conspiracy.

On June 15, 2021, the court was informed that at least one petitioner might be detained under PASA. In response, the court provided interim protection to the petitioners and issued several directives:

1. The petitioners feared detention under PASA.

2. Mr. Hardik Soni, the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), informed the court that the investigation was completed, and the charge sheet was filed. He noted the multi-state nature of the scam and that a final decision was pending. Specifically, Sanjaykumar Mafatlal Patel, a petitioner, faced two charges.

3. The court highlighted the critical issue of whether the threat of detention under PASA should persist for traders facing discrepancies in GST. It questioned the appropriate timing for such a detention decision and requested a response from the State.

4. The court allowed the petitioners to add the State of Gujarat, represented by the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) at New Sachivalaya Complex, Gandhinagar, as a respondent.

5. Mr. Hardik Soni, AGP, waived notice for the newly added respondent.

6. The case was scheduled for a hearing on June 30, 2021.

7. In the interim, the court ordered that if the detaining authority (the Collector and District Magistrate of Mehsana) received any relevant directives, they should adhere to the court’s instructions.

This summary outlines the petitioners’ concern over potential detention under PASA related to GST discrepancies, the court’s interim protection measures, and the procedural steps taken for further hearings and responses from state authorities.

The petitioners were concerned about their potential detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) due to a complaint filed by the State Tax Department. This complaint was based on alleged violations of various sub-sections of Section 132 of both the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Upon receiving the notice from the Court, on June 15, 2021, it was communicated that at least one of the petitioners might be detained under PASA. To address these concerns, the Court issued a protective order, noting several key points:

1. The petitioners feared detention under PASA.

2. Mr. Hardik Soni, the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), informed the Court that the investigation was completed, and a charge sheet had been filed. He emphasized that the matter was part of a multi-state scam, and a final decision was pending. Specifically, regarding petitioner Sanjaykumar Mafatlal Patel, there were two offenses against him.

3. The Court highlighted a critical issue: whether detention under PASA should be considered in cases of GST discrepancies and, if so, at what stage such a decision should be made. The Court required a response from the State on this matter.

4. The Court allowed the petitioners to join the State of Gujarat, through the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), as a party respondent.

5. Mr. Hardik Soni waived the appearance for the newly added respondent.

6. The case was scheduled for further hearing on June 30, 2021.

7. In the interim, the Court ordered that if the detaining authority, indicated as the Collector and District Magistrate of Mehsana, received any proposal for detention under PASA, they should be informed accordingly.

However, there was no response from the Finance Department of the State of Gujarat to the Court’s query. Instead, on July 22, 2021, affidavits in reply were filed by the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Department. These affidavits detailed the allegations against the petitioners and concluded that, so far, there had been no proposal to detain the petitioners under PASA by the State GST Department.

The Court observed that the Finance Department had not responded to its query, leaving the trader community under the threat of potential detention. The lack of response and the continued uncertainty were seen as problematic, especially when the State and the economy were trying to recover post-COVID. The Court deemed it inappropriate to allow such uncertainty to persist, finding it unjust to leave citizens in such a precarious situation.

After hearing from the advocates and considering the available material, the Court concluded that the State Authorities should not be permitted to resort to stringent measures like detention under PASA in such circumstances.

The petitioners were concerned about possible detention under the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act (PASA) in relation to a complaint filed by the State Tax Department in the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court in Ahmedabad. The complaint involved various sub-sections of Section 132 of both the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

On June 15, 2021, the Court, upon receiving a notice, was informed that at least one petitioner might be detained under PASA. While granting protection to the petitioners, the Court passed an order outlining several points:

1. The petitioners feared detention under PASA.

2. Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), informed the Court that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed. He highlighted that the case was a multi-state scam and that a final decision was pending. He mentioned that Sanjaykumar Mafatlal Patel, one of the petitioners, had two offenses against him.

3. The Court raised the issue of whether discrepancies in GST justified the threat of PASA detention hanging over the trader community. It also sought clarity on when such a decision should be made, requiring a response from the State.

4. The Court allowed the State of Gujarat, through the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), to be added as a party respondent.

5. Mr. Hardik Soni waived the need for a formal appearance for the newly added respondent.

6. The case was scheduled to be listed on June 30, 2021.

7. In the interim, the Court ordered that if the Collector and District Magistrate, Mehsana, who is the detaining authority, received any proposal for detention, it should not proceed without the Court’s consideration.

However, there was no response from the Finance Department of the State of Gujarat to the Court’s query. Instead, affidavits dated July 22, 2021, were submitted by the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Department. These affidavits detailed the allegations against the petitioners and stated that no proposal for detention under PASA had been made so far by the State GST Department.

The Court noted that the Finance Department had not responded to its query, leaving the threat of PASA detention hanging over the traders. This situation was deemed unacceptable, especially as the state and economy were trying to recover post-COVID. The Court emphasized that citizens could not be left in such uncertainty.

After hearing the arguments and considering the records and circumstances, the Court concluded that the State Authorities should not use stringent provisions like PASA against the petitioners. It restrained the State from resorting to detention under PASA in these cases.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: