Amir Mohammed Haq Vs State of Telangana (Telangana High Court)
The Telangana High Court considered a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with summons issued under Section 13 of the Health Security & National Security Cess Act, 2025 (HSNS Act).
The petitioner stated that he was engaged in the real estate business through Cyber Towers and Sanali Housing Projects Private Limited. He contended that the summons issued by the GST authorities did not disclose the nature of the allegations, the subject matter of the enquiry, his alleged role, or the documents required to be produced. According to him, although no offence had been disclosed against him, the manner in which the summons were issued created a reasonable apprehension of arrest. He submitted that he was a permanent resident of Hyderabad, had established business interests, was willing to cooperate with the investigation, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
The respondent, represented by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), opposed the petition. It submitted that intelligence gathered by the Anti-Evasion Wing revealed an organized syndicate engaged in clandestine manufacture of Kalakaar Pan Masala using unregistered packing machines without registration under the HSNS Act and without payment of statutory cess. Searches allegedly resulted in seizure of four unregistered packing machines, large quantities of pan masala, raw materials, and packing materials. According to the respondent, the investigation disclosed alleged HSNS cess evasion of approximately ₹12 crores, attracting Section 19(1)(a) of the HSNS Act. It was further alleged that a co-accused identified the petitioner as the mastermind, principal financier, and supervisor of the operations, that he had invested ₹5 crores in the business, failed to comply with three summons, produced misleading medical certificates, and travelled to Dubai during the relevant period. The respondent contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace financial transactions, identify beneficiaries, examine electronic and documentary evidence, ascertain the petitioner’s role, and investigate the wider conspiracy.
