New Delhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the provision of pre-arrest bail applies to the Goods and Services Act and the customs law, and added that in cases where an FIR has not been lodged, then the person can approach the court for the pre-arrest bail.
The verdict was delivered by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and comprising justices MM Sundresh and Bela M Trivedi.
The bench made it clear that individuals have the right to approach courts for pre-arrest bail, even in cases where an FIR is not in place. The apex court ruled that the provisions of the criminal procedure code would be applicable in cases under the GST and customs laws.
The apex court had reserved the verdict on May 16, last year on a batch of pleas challenging the penal provisions in the Customs Act, and the GST Act as being non-compatible with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Constitution.
The CJI, pronouncing the verdict, said the provisions of CrPC and the subsequent law, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), on issues like anticipatory bail, would be applicable to persons under the Customs and the GST Acts.
The bench made it clear that it does not approve of enforcement officers using “threat and coercion” during search and seizure operations under the GST framework. The bench said that officers involved in such operations should be made to face departmental proceedings.
The apex court did not accept the argument that customs officers are police officers. The apex court said that safeguards applicable to arrests under other statutes, including the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), will now apply in cases of arrests under GST and Customs laws. This would mean that before taking the coercive action, the reasons that an offence has been committed must be recorded.
The detailed judgment in the case will be uploaded later in the day. The lead petition was filed by one Radhika Agarwal in 2018.
The petitioners moved the apex court against the provisions empowering tax authorities to arrest individuals for alleged tax evasion and fraud. The petitioners' had argued that such powers exceed the legislative intent and violate constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and 21 (liberty).
