Case Law Details
Vishal @ Vishal Dadaso Tamkhade Employee of Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs Director General of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence (Karnataka High Court)
Transit Anticipatory Bail Granted Under Section 132 CGST Act to Approach Jurisdictional Court: Karnataka HC
The petitioners filed criminal petitions before the Karnataka High Court seeking transit anticipatory bail in proceedings bearing No. DGGI/INT/INTL/335/2026, registered by the respondent authorities for offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) read with 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The relief was sought to enable them to approach the jurisdictional court at Chennai and seek anticipatory bail in the pending proceedings.
The respondents opposed the petitions by filing a statement of objections. According to the allegations, the accused persons, who were running business in the name of M/s. Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in purchasing old or used gold and silver jewellery from walk-in customers across various branches in South India and had allegedly evaded revenue exceeding ₹100 crores.
During the investigation, multiple raids were conducted at the petitioners’ business premises in Bengaluru and other locations, and certain relevant documents were seized. The petitioners contended that they apprehended arrest by the respondent authorities before they could approach the jurisdictional court at Chennai for anticipatory bail and therefore sought transit anticipatory bail from the Karnataka High Court.
The High Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka [(2024) 4 SCC 749], which dealt with the power of courts regarding the grant of interim anticipatory bail. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of that decision, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, the Court held that granting transit anticipatory bail for a limited period would serve the ends of justice by enabling the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court at Chennai and seek appropriate relief.
The respondents argued that there was a possibility that the petitioners might flee from justice if granted interim anticipatory bail and submitted that suitable conditions should be imposed in the event such relief was granted.
The Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petitions and granted the petitioners interim transit anticipatory bail in proceedings bearing No. DGGI/INT/INTL/335/2026 for a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the order. The relief was granted solely to enable the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, for anticipatory bail.
The Court directed that, in the event of their arrest during the ten-day period, the petitioners should be released on executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the respondents. The Court further directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation and to surrender their passports to the respondents, subject to any orders that might subsequently be passed by the jurisdictional court at Chennai in the anticipatory bail proceedings.
Cases Discussed:
- Priya Indoria vs State of Karnataka – (2024) 4 SCC 749.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
1. Petitioners in the above captioned criminal petitions who are apprehending arrest in proceedings bearing No.DGGI/INT/INTL/335/2026 registered by respondent nos.1 & 2 herein for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) read with 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, are before this Court seeking transit anticipatory bail so as to enable them to approach the jurisdictional Court and seek anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents who has filed statement of objections opposing the bail petitions.
3. The allegation against the accused persons who have been running business in the name of M/s. Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., is that they are engaged in the business of purchasing old/used gold and silver jewellery from walk-in customers across various branches situated in South India, and thereby have evaded revenue to the tune of more than Rs.100 Crores.
4. During the course of investigation, multiple raids were conducted to the business premises of the petitioners at Bengaluru and other places and it appears that certain relevant documents have been seized in the present case. Since petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondents even before they approaching the jurisdictional Court at Chennai seeking anticipatory bail, they are before this Court with a prayer to grant transit anticipatory bail.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PRIYA INDORIA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA – (2024)4 SCC 749, has dealt with the power of the court in detail with regard to grant of interim anticipatory bail. If the facts of the present case are evaluated in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priya Indoria’s case supra, I am of the view that without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if the petitioners herein who are seeking transit anticipatory bail so as to enable them to approach the jurisdictional Court at Chennai in Tamilnadu State and file necessary application seeking anticipatory bail are granted relief for a limited period, the same would serve the ends of justice.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents has expressed that the petitioners may flee away from justice in the event if they are granted interim anticipatory bail in these petitions and he has also stated that there is flight risk and submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed while granting transit anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the criminal petitions are allowed. The petitioners are granted interim anticipatory bail in proceedings bearing No.DGGI/INT/INTL/335/2026 registered by respondent nos.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a) read with 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, for a limited period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Court at Chennai in Tamilnadu seeking necessary reliefs in the aforesaid case. In the meanwhile, in the event of their arrest in the above case by the respondents, they shall be released, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of 1,00,000/- with two sureties to the likesum to the satisfaction of the respondents;
2. The petitioners shall co-operate with the respondents for the purpose of investigation.
3. The petitioners shall surrender their passports to the respondents which would be subject to the orders that may be passed by the jurisdictional Court at Chennai in the petition which would be filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail.
Author Bio
