State of Gujarat Etc. Vs Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Gujarat and set aside the Gujarat High Court’s common order dated 24.12.2018 concerning respondents summoned in an inquiry into alleged GST/service-tax evasion. The Court held that persons summoned for recording statements at the inquiry stage cannot invoke Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail because no FIR is registered before exercise of the arrest power under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act. Although pre-arrest protection may be sought through Article 226 of the Constitution, such jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and a writ court should ordinarily not interfere with the statutory power of arrest.
Relying on Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, the Court reiterated that statutory arrest powers must rest on objective facts and the officer’s reason to believe that the specified offence has been committed, while courts should not impose conditions such as mandatory prior notice that obstruct the statutory power. The Court also approved important observations in P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India concerning Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act and the safeguards under Sections 41 and 41A CrPC, observing that those safeguards may have to be kept in mind before arrest, but Section 41A(3) does not provide an absolute guarantee against arrest.
