Tejas Pravin Dugad Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
The Petitioners are directors of M/s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited company and the company is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Laws) (the Act). It has registered office at Supa, District Nagar, Maharashtra. One Tushar Munot, sole proprietor of M/s. Rutu Enterprises was arrested by the Respondents, officers of GST intelligence in the month of October 2020. In the month of November 2020, search of the premises of the company of Petitioners was conducted and some documents came to be seized. It is the contention of the Petitioners that as there was allegations of commission of offence under Section 132 of the Act and it was informed to them that there was GST liabilities of Rs.84,00,046/-(Rupees Eighty-Four Lakh and Forty-Six Only), the Petitioner deposited this amount with Respondent No.2, but under protest. It is the contentions of the Petitioners that they want to contest the liability levied against them.
In the petitions, it is mentioned that the Petitioners want to challenge the prosecution as it is on wrong conceptions and as the provisions of Sections 154, 157 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not followed by the Respondents. It is the contentions of the Petitioners that all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure need to be applied for registration of crime, investigation and for taking cognizance of the offence and as the procedure is not followed, action taken against them is illegal.
Held by High Court
Respondent department was virtually prevented from exercising its powers even like issuing summons. By such order, the Petitioners indirectly got relief of anticipatory bail, which is also not ordinarily permissible in proceeding of present nature. White collar offences are more serious than offences like murder, dacoity etc. Such offences are committed after hatching conspiracy. This circumstance needs to be kept in mind by Court as the granting of relief of anticipatory bail hampers investigation and such approach causes damage to the image of judiciary.
The circumstances shows that even when the matter could have been filed before the regular Court as search and seizure took place in November 2020, the matter came to be filed before the Vacation Court. This circumstance also cannot be ignored. Attempt is made to give explanation that the consultant of the company was infected due to Covid-19 virus. Such submission ordinarily cannot be accepted by the Court. On 11th January, 2021, there was insistence to grant interim relief and adjournment was sought. The interim relief was vacated by this Court by order dated 11th January, 2021. On 14th January, 2021 also, initially an attempt was made by the counsel, who argued the matter that only the Petitioner from Criminal Writ Petition No.1716 of 2020 had instructed him to argue the matter. When the Court expressed that the Court will dispose of all the matters on merits if the Court finds that admission is not possible, then only argument was advanced in all the matters. Due to all these circumstances, this Court holds that some costs needs to be imposed on the Petitioners. In the result, the following order is passed:
