Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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.

Similar News