Ashutosh Pandey Vs Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Court of Session at Greater Bombay)
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with File No. DGGI/INTL/495/2026/409 registered by CGST, Mumbai for offences punishable under Section 132 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The applicant contended that he was neither a Director of M/s. Drishti Steel Company nor M/s. SKDK Steels Private Limited and was merely employed as an accountant-support staff with M/s. Drishti Steel Company. He argued that the respondent had failed to furnish particulars or reasons requiring his presence before the investigating agency and that no offence was made out against him. It was further submitted that all relevant documents relied upon by the company were already available with the respondent on the GST portal, that no vicarious criminal liability could be imposed merely by virtue of employment, and that he could not be compelled to support the respondent’s case against the company or its Directors. According to the applicant, as he had no role in the management or decision-making of the company, custodial interrogation was unwarranted.
The applicant also relied upon Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, submitting that only offences falling under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 132(1), punishable under clause (i), are cognizable and non-bailable, and that the power of arrest can be exercised only where such offences are alleged. He further argued that arrest must be exercised with due care and caution, stated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and sought anticipatory bail.
