Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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