The Jharkhand High Court set aside the order issuing the warrant of arrest against the accused and observed that the processes had been issued post-cognizance and once the summons had been issued, the court can issue a warrant only after receipt of the service report.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners, directors of companies engaged in trading iron and steel products created a web of fake entities with the intent to defraud the Government exchequer by availing and utilizing the fake ITC and failed to appear before the respondents even after several summons. The process of summons and reply continued, but the petitioners did not appear in compliance with the summoning order. Bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners after one of them was arrested after his house was raided and this has been challenged in the present petition.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioners had been discharging tax liabilities in accordance with law and furnished returns under provisions of the CGST Act in support of same. It was further argued that the warrant of arrest cannot be issued against the accused without the receipt of the service report of summons earlier issued and reliance was made on the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation to support the same.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of CGST contended that the present case was not of the type where the accused was summoned for the first time and the petitioners did not cooperate during the investigation even after summons were issued for them to appear before the investigating agency. It was further argued that the present case was that of more than 100 crore tax fraud and the petitioners deliberately avoided the due process of law. It was further argued that the court has the power to issue summons even in a warrant case, but there is no mandate of law that in all circumstances, even in warrant cases, the Court is bound to issue the summons. Further reliance was made to the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation which held that the court need to record special reasons while issuing warrants in such cases.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the processes had been issued post-cognizance and once the summons had been issued, the court can issue a warrant only after receipt of the service report.
The court stated that things would have been different if the warrant had been issued in the pre-cognizance stage during the investigation as the petitioners had been served summons several times, but they deliberately avoided appearance before the investigating agency despite the directions of the court.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of issuing the warrant and directed the petitioners to appear before the court within a period of two weeks.
Case Title: Pankaj Agarwal and ors. vs. Union of India and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 4156 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. N.K Pasari
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ratnaesh Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg
