Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

Supreme Court Allows Apprehending Absconding Accused in GST Evasion Case; Grants One Last Opportunity for Cooperation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted permission for the apprehension of absconding accused individuals involved in a Goods and Service Tax (GST) evasion case. The apex court allowed the prosecution to proceed further with the inquiry against the accused, who had failed to cooperate with the authorities for the past five years.

The case, titled “Criminal Appeal Nos. [numbers] of 2023,” arose from Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4212-4213 of 2019, filed by The State of Gujarat against Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. The respondents were summoned under Section 145 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to the service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The summons were issued to interrogate the accused in connection with an inquiry into alleged evasion of GST liability by M/s. Iyer Enterprise Mundra Kutch.

The court noted that the respondents had not been in touch with their counsel for the past six months, leading to a lack of assistance to the court. The prosecution argued that as many as 14 summons were issued to one of the respondents, but the accused only appeared for interrogation once, after which they abstained from cooperating with the authorities.

The court examined the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows for arrest when there are reasons to believe that a person committed specified offenses punishable under Section 132(1) of the Act. The court cited the case of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305, stating that statutory powers of arrest should be exercised based on objective facts of the offense committed.

The apex court clarified that at the stage of summons, the respondents cannot seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Instead, they may seek protection through a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While delivering the judgment, the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated, “We are still inclined to give one more opportunity to both the respondents to appear before the authorities for the purpose of recording their statements. If the respondents fail to appear, then it shall be open for the authority concerned to proceed further in accordance with the law.”

With this verdict, the Supreme Court has allowed the prosecution to continue the inquiry against the absconding accused in the GST evasion case, providing a final chance for them to cooperate with the authorities.

 

Date of Decision: July 17, 2023

THE STATE OF GUJARAT  ETC.  vs CHOODAMANI PARMESHWARAN IYER & ANR.

Latest Legal News