Raj Kumar Mishra Vs Union Of India And 2 Ors. (Gauhati High Court)
Gauhati High Court held that anticipatory bail application is not maintainable since ineligible ITC amount involved is less 5 crores and hence the case falls under bailable offence. Accordingly, the application is rejected.
Facts- The petitioner is a businessman by profession and is the proprietor of M/S MRN METAL & MINERALS. He further submitted that after obtaining the order of interim pre-arrest bail on 27.03.2025, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Agency and co-operated in the investigation of the case. He further submitted that initially the present petitioner was served with a Notice u/s. 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and accordingly he authorized his counsel to appear on his behalf before the GST Officer and to produce the relevant documents sought by the Senior Intelligence Officer, GST.
At the time of service of Notice, the petitioner was undergoing medical treatment at Jharkhand and hence, he authorized his counsel to appear on his behalf and to submit the relevant documents. But the Office of the GST did not accept the appearance of his engaged counsel and also did not accept the relevant documents which were supposed to be produced before the GST Office. However, after his recovery and returning from Jharkhand, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for pre-arrest bail and this Court, vide order dated 27.03.2025, considering his prayer, granted the petitioner with the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail with a direction to appear before the Office of the GST and in pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has accordingly appeared before the Office of the GST and co-operated in the investigation.
