Case Law Details
Nitesh Wadhwani Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner began with the arguments that the only fault of the petitioner is that he is the landlord of the premises where his tenant, who runs a factory, allegedly evaded the tax by clandestine sale of Pan Masala. The petitioner is neither a Partner of his tenant M/s Vishnu Essence nor is concerned with it in any other way. But he has been portrayed as the only responsible person for the alleged crimes committed by his tenant, while no documents have been produced by the department to prove the same.
In reply, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is the Director of a Media Company, which publishes a daily newspaper in the name and style of “Dabang Dunia”. Several vehicles incriminated in the clandestine removal/transportation of Pan Masala endorsed the Dabang Duniya press sticker and drivers of these vehicles were carrying Identity Cards of Dabang Dunia as provided to them by the transporter ‘Ashoo RoadLines’.
It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the Director of media company Dabang Dunia but it is contended that they are neither concerned nor responsible for he unauthorized use of any sticker or ID card by any vehicle or driver implicated in the clandestine transportation of any taxable goods.
It emerges from most of the judgments on the issue of granting anticipatory bail cited by the respondent that the Hon’ble Courts have held that the facts of a particular case are the paramount consideration for granting or refusing the protection of a pre-arrest bail. It is nowhere stated that the anticipatory bail is barred by law or cannot be granted in a case registered under the GST Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
