Pankaj Mehta VS Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods

In this case, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail concerning complaint No.COMA/15650/2021 dated November 29, 2021. The complaint, titled Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate Vs. Gurbax Lal and others, pertains to offenses under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax (PGST) Act, 2017, along with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017.

On May 27, 2022, the court granted interim protection to the petitioner, instructing him to appear before the trial court. The petitioner’s counsel reports that the petitioner has complied with this order by presenting himself before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitting the necessary bail bonds. Furthermore, the counsel emphasizes that the petitioner has consistently appeared before the court as required.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in relation to Complaint No. COMA/15650/2021 dated 29.11.2021, titled as Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate Vs. Gurbax Lal and others. The complaint was filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the Punjab Goods & Services Tax (PGST) Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017.

On 27.05.2022, an interim protection order was granted, directing the petitioner to appear before the trial court. The petitioner’s counsel stated that, in compliance with this order, the petitioner duly appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted his bail bonds. The petitioner has been continuously attending court proceedings and adhering to the conditions of the interim bail.

The core of the allegations made by the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) authorities against the petitioner is that he has wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately Rs. 7.00 crores. The petitioner contends that, according to their calculations, the actual amount is less than Rs. 5.00 crores. However, due to the specific allegations that the ITC wrongly availed exceeds Rs. 7.00 crores, the petitioner argues that he is entitled to anticipatory bail. This is because, under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017, if the amount involved is over Rs. 5.00 crores, the offence becomes non-bailable.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the petitioner has been compliant with all the terms and conditions of the interim bail and has been cooperating fully with the court proceedings. This compliance and the argument regarding the disputed amount of ITC form the basis of the petitioner’s request for anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent has though affirmed that the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court in pursuance to interim bail granted by this Court, however, he has opposed the interim bail granted to him. He submits that the petitioner is required in other enquiries initiated against him and till date, he has not appeared in those enquiries. However, he has candidly acknowledged that those are the independent cause of action. He has vehemently submitted that the ITC availed by the petitioner amounts to Rs.7.22 crores. He has also submitted that the arrest authorization has not been issued against the petitioner and hence, there is no apprehension of his arrest.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 and he has appeared before learned trial Court in pursuance to the same. However, both the counsel have disputed the amount of ITC involved in the present case. The specific stand of the respondent-complainant is that the amount involved is about Rs.7.22

In the present petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in complaint No. COMA/15650/2021, dated November 29, 2021. The case is titled “Superintendent (Anti Evasion) Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate Vs. Gurbax Lal and others” and involves allegations under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax (PGST) Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017.

The petitioner was granted interim protection by an order dated May 27, 2022, and was directed to appear before the trial court. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the petitioner complied with this order, appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and submitted his bail bonds. The petitioner has been regularly attending court proceedings as per the conditions of the interim bail.

The central allegation by the respondent, the Central Goods & Services Tax authorities, is that the petitioner wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately Rs. 7.00 crores. However, the petitioner’s counsel argues that the calculated amount is less than Rs. 5.00 crores. The significance of this discrepancy lies in the non-bailable nature of the offense under Section 132 of the PGST Act, 2017, if the wrongfully availed ITC exceeds Rs. 5.00 crores. Despite this, the petitioner’s counsel asserts that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

The respondent’s counsel confirms the petitioner’s appearance before the trial court as per the interim bail order but opposes the continuation of this bail. He highlights that the petitioner is needed for other inquiries, in which he has not yet appeared, though these are separate matters. The respondent’s counsel insists that the ITC amount wrongfully availed by the petitioner is Rs. 7.22 crores. He also notes that no arrest authorization has been issued against the petitioner, indicating no immediate threat of arrest.

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, it is clear that the petitioner has complied with the interim bail conditions by appearing in court. However, there remains a dispute over the exact amount of ITC involved. The respondent maintains that the amount is approximately Rs. 7.22 crores, while the petitioner’s counsel argues it is less than Rs. 5.00 crores. The court’s final decision on the anticipatory bail request will likely hinge on resolving this financial discrepancy and considering the compliance and cooperation of the petitioner with ongoing proceedings.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case filed against them under Sections 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding alleged wrongful availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to around Rs. 7.00 crores. Initially granted interim protection, the petitioner has been attending court proceedings as per the conditions set forth.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that despite the alleged amount being less than Rs. 5.00 crores, specific accusations of Rs. 7.00 crores justify anticipatory bail. Conversely, the respondent contends the amount exceeds Rs. 7.22 crores and opposes bail, noting the petitioner’s non-appearance in other inquiries.

The court acknowledges the petitioner’s compliance with the interim bail and the disputed amount of ITC. However, it refrains from determining the exact sum, leaving it to the trial court’s discretion. The court grants anticipatory bail, subject to Section 438 Cr.P.C conditions, and mandates continued appearance before the trial court.

In essence, the court grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner while leaving the determination of the exact amount of alleged wrongful availed ITC to the trial court, emphasizing the petitioner’s ongoing compliance with court proceedings. 

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law