News Details- (Get Professional Updates on Whatsapp, Msg on
8285393786) More
News
GST defaulters may get arrested without FIR, anticipatory bail unlikely - SC
The Supreme Court suggested to the high courts on Wednesday not to grant anticipatory bail to those who default on the goods and services tax (GST), and reminded them that the SC has upheld the Telangana HC’s decision not to grant bail to such defaulters, the Times of India said in a report.
On April 18, a division of the Telangana HC had upheld the authority and power of the commissioner of the central goods and services tax (CGST) to arrest and rejected any interim relief to those accused of violating the CGST Act, 2017.
On May 27, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the HC order. The Centre had argued that CGST officers were not police and hence not required to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates registration of FIR prior to arrest, the ToI report mentioned.
However, the Bombay high court had passed a series of orders granting pre-arrest bail to CGST Act violators on the ground that the CGST officials had not registered any FIR as warranted under the CrPC. Following these orders, the Centre had filed a bunch of appeals in the SC against the Bombay high court orders.
Challenging the Bombay HC’s orders, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said Parliament had segregated CGST Act from CrPC and provided a separate procedure for dealing with offenders. Mehta said the HC’s orders had brought “functions of the directorate general of GST intelligence to a grinding halt”.
According to the daily, a vacation bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose said, “As different high courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by this court. Hence the notice.”
“As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by high courts by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the high courts, while entertaining such requests in future, will keep in mind that the Supreme Court by order dated May 27 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana high court in a similar matter, wherein the high court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the high court (of Bombay) in the present case. Beyond the above, we do not consider it necessary to observe anything further,” the ToI report quoted the top court as saying in the notice.
However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi requested the CJI to delete the reference to the apex court upholding the Telangana HC order as it would “close all doors” for the accused under CGST Act to seek relief. The bench refused to oblige and said, “That is the whole idea.” #casansaar (Source - Times of India, Times Network)
On April 18, a division of the Telangana HC had upheld the authority and power of the commissioner of the central goods and services tax (CGST) to arrest and rejected any interim relief to those accused of violating the CGST Act, 2017.
On May 27, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against the HC order. The Centre had argued that CGST officers were not police and hence not required to follow the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates registration of FIR prior to arrest, the ToI report mentioned.
However, the Bombay high court had passed a series of orders granting pre-arrest bail to CGST Act violators on the ground that the CGST officials had not registered any FIR as warranted under the CrPC. Following these orders, the Centre had filed a bunch of appeals in the SC against the Bombay high court orders.
Challenging the Bombay HC’s orders, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said Parliament had segregated CGST Act from CrPC and provided a separate procedure for dealing with offenders. Mehta said the HC’s orders had brought “functions of the directorate general of GST intelligence to a grinding halt”.
According to the daily, a vacation bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose said, “As different high courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by this court. Hence the notice.”
“As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by high courts by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the high courts, while entertaining such requests in future, will keep in mind that the Supreme Court by order dated May 27 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana high court in a similar matter, wherein the high court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the high court (of Bombay) in the present case. Beyond the above, we do not consider it necessary to observe anything further,” the ToI report quoted the top court as saying in the notice.
However, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi requested the CJI to delete the reference to the apex court upholding the Telangana HC order as it would “close all doors” for the accused under CGST Act to seek relief. The bench refused to oblige and said, “That is the whole idea.” #casansaar (Source - Times of India, Times Network)
Category : GST | Comments : 0 | Hits : 1261
Get Free Daily Updates Via e-Mail on Income Tax, Service tax, Excise and Corporate law
Search News
News By Categories More Categories
- Income Tax Dept serves notices to salaried individuals for documentary proof to claim exemptions
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 - Update on allotment of Branches
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2021 Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2020 - Update on Allotment of Branches
- Police Atrocities towards CA in Faridabad - Its Time to be Unite
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates 2019
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- Bank Branch Audit 2022 Updates
- Bank Branch Statutory Audit Updates
- NFRA Imposes Monetary penalty of Rs 1 Crore on M/s Dhiraj & Dheeraj
- ICAI notifies earlier announced CA exam dates despite pending legal challenge before SC
- NFRA debars Auditors, imposes Rs 50 lakh penalties for lapses in Brightcom, CMIL cases
- GST Important Update - Enhancement in the GST Portal
- NFRA Slaps Rs 5 lakh Penalty on Audit Firm for lapses in Vikas WSP Audit Case
- CBDT extends due date for filing Form 10A/10AB upto 30th June, 2024
- RBI comes out with FEMA regulations for direct listing on international exchange
- RBI directs payment firms to track high-value, fishy transactions during elections
- NCLT orders insolvency proceedings against Subhash Chandra
- Income Tax dept starts drive to dispose of appeals, 0.54 million at last count
- Payment of MCA fees –electronic mode-regarding
- Budget '11-12' Parliament Completes Approval Exercise
- Satyam restrained from operating its accounts
- ICICI a foreign firm, subject to FDI norms: Govt
- Maha expects Rs 15 crore entertainment tax revenue from IPL
- CAG blames PMO for not acting against Kalmadi
- No service tax on visa facilitators: CBEC
- Provision of 15-minutes reading and planning time allowance to the candidates of Chartered Accountants Examinations
- Companies Bill to be taken up in Monsoon Session
- File Service Tax Return in time as Maximum Penalty increased 10 times to Rs. 20000

Comments