Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 8 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010150972025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1636/2025
SHAHINA SULTANA AND ANR
W/O SHAHBAZ HAIDER
PROPRIETOR OF M/S AIDA BITUMEX (GSTIN- 1BCCVPS4070H1ZX),
HAVING ITS OFFICE AND GODOWAN AT- MIKIRPARA, SAKARDAI,
MOUZA- RAMACHARANI, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM
2: MR SHAHBAZ HAIDER
HUSBAND OF PETITIONER NO. 1
DE FACTO MANAGER AND AUTHORISED BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE OF
M/S AIDA BITUMEX
RESIDING AT THE SAME ADDRESS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G RENGMA, A K JHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
08.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. G. Rengma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Page No.# 2/7
Also heard B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for State GST, Assam.
2. The instant bail application under Section 482 of BNSS,
2023, R/W Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioners, namely, 1. Smt. Shahina Sultana and 2. Mr.
Shahbaz Haider, in connection with summons dated
23.04.2025 and 28.05.2025 issued by the State GST
Department under the provisions of Section 70 of the
CGST/AGST Act, 2017.
3. The allegations in a gist is that the petitioner who is a
business person and running a company named M/s AIDA Bitumex,
indulged in evasion of revenue in the form of GST and the
department has assessed the alleged evasion at around Rs.8 crores.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, drawing
the Court’s attention to the fact that two notices dated 23.04.2025
and 28.05.2025 were issued to her, directing the petitioner to appear
by herself or authorized representative. On both the occasions, the
petitioner appeared through her authorized representative namely,
first, her husband i.e. Mr. Shahbaz Haider and second time, through
Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, the learned counsel.
5. However, the learned Departmental Counsel submits that
she was summoned three more times but those times, she did not
appear. The summons of the aforesaid two dates has been annexed
with the petition and I have perused the same.
6. It is also revealed from the materials that the Court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), granted interim
Page No.# 3/7
protection to the petitioners on their pre-arrest bail application, with
a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Court. However,
the petitioner no.1 sought to appear via online mode, which was
rejected and she subsequently failed to appear physically.
7. Pursuant thereof, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup
(M), after perusing the materials, was pleased to reject the petition
for anticipatory bail.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court seeking
protection from arrest. It may be mentioned herein that Section 69
of the Act confers certain powers of arrest upon the revenue
authority. The said provision may be reproduced herein below –
69. Power to arrest –
(1) Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that
a person has committed any offence specified in clause
(a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-
section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under
clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of
the said section, he may, by order, authorize any officer
of central tax to arrest such person.
(2) Where a person is arrested under sub-section (1) for
an offence specified under subsection (5) of section 132,
the officer authorized to arrest the person shall inform
such person of the grounds of arrest and produce him
Page No.# 4/7
before a Magistrate within twenty-four hours.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973,–
(a)where a person is arrested under sub-section
(1) for any offence specified under sub-section (4)
of section 132, he shall be admitted to bail or in
default of bail, forwarded to the custody of the
Magistrate;
(b)in the case of a non-cognizable and bailable
offence, the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant
Commissioner shall, for the purpose of releasing
an arrested person on bail or otherwise, have the
same powers and be subject to the same
provisions as an officer-in-charge of a police
station.
9. Section 70 of the Act, which bears relevance to the matter
at hand, may also be reproduced herein below –
(1) The proper officer under this Act shall have power to
summon any person whose attendance he considers
necessary either to give evidence or to produce a
document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same
manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908).
(2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1)
Page No.# 5/7
shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within
the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
10. The learned Departmental Counsel submits that the
petitioner i.e. Smt. Shahina Sultana has only been summoned along
with documents to facilitate enquiry into the alleged tax evasion and
therefore, her apprehension of arrest is misplaced and further
submits that due to her non-appearance, the enquiry proceeding is
also stalled.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner shall co-operate with the enquiry/investigation but due to
her apprehension of arrest seeks anticipatory bail and interim
protection at this stage.
12. The learned Departmental Counsel has placed before the
Court a order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court i.e. AB/1704/2025 submitting that the issue was broadly
identical and the Court observed in paragraph 7 that since notice has
been issued which only contemplates appearance through authorized
representatives, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners of
arrest is not justified and accordingly, the bail petition was disposed
with the direction to the petitioners to appear on a specified date to
file a appropriate application for extension of time.
13. In this backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioners
contends and submits that during the hearings through authorized
representative, it has transpires that the revenue departmental
Page No.# 6/7
authority is insisting on personal appearance of the petitioners and
therefore, their apprehension of arrest invoking Section 69
continues.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon perusing
the materials and considering the submissions of the learned
counsels – it appears clearly that the appearance of the petitioners
shall facilitate the progress of the enquiry which is stated by the
departmental counsel to be stalled due to such non-appearance,
despite the appearance of the authorized representative.
15. The revenue departmental authority would certainly be at
liberty to seek personal interaction with the petitioner as she is the
proprietor of the concerned business. Therefore, her appearance at
the present stage of enquiry might be necessary. Therefore, the in-
compliance of the notice, the petitioners shall appear before the
revenue authority within 3(three) weeks.
16. At the same time, to address the apprehension of the
petitioners, it is directed that till the returnable date, during such
hearings conducted with the petitioners, in the event of the revenue
authority invoking Section 69 of the Act and choosing to arrest the
petitioners, they may be allowed to go on interim bail of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only each with one
surety each of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the
concerned authority with following conditions:
i) That the petitioners shall appear before the revenue
authority along with all the documents and facilitate the
Page No.# 7/7progress of the enquiry.
17. In the meantime, call for the up-to-date
enquiry/investigation report from the Department for final
adjudication of this proceeding.
18. List on 09.09.2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant