Facts of the Case

The petitioners, M/s. Mangal @ Mangal, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner P. Mookan, and Dhanalakshmi, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. The petition arose from Original Order No. 07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023, passed on the file of the respondent authorities. The respondents were the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli; the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore; and the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli. The matter was listed before Justice V. Sivagnanam and disposed of on 27.11.2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with proceedings flowing from Order No. 07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023.
  2. Whether, once the petitioners chose to withdraw the petition, the Court was called upon to examine the merits of the bail claim at all.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners had approached the Court apprehending arrest in connection with proceedings flowing from Order No. 07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023 passed against them by the GST authorities.
  • Through counsel, Mr. B.E. Ashwin Bala Someshwerar, the petitioners sought protection from arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C. pending resolution of the underlying dispute with the department.
  • At the hearing, counsel for the petitioners instead sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition and made a formal endorsement to that effect, without pressing any ground originally urged for anticipatory bail.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents were represented by Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Special Public Prosecutor for Central Government Standing Counsel.
  • The order records no substantive submissions or opposition from the respondents, since the petitioners withdrew before any contest on merits could take place.
  • No arguments on the validity of Order No. 07/2023-GST or the need for custodial interrogation appear anywhere in the order.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court noted that counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition.
  • Permission to withdraw was granted, and the endorsement made by counsel to that effect was recorded by the Court.
  • Recording this endorsement, the Court dismissed Crl OP(MD) No. 18520 of 2023 as withdrawn.
  • The order is purely procedural: it contains no discussion of the facts underlying Order No. 07/2023-GST, no analysis of Section 438 Cr.P.C., and no finding on whether the petitioners' apprehension of arrest was well founded.
  • A later endorsement notes the matter was again mentioned before the Court on 05.01.2024, though no further substantive order appears in this text.

Important Clarification

  • This order lays down no principle of GST law; it is a purely procedural disposal recording withdrawal of an anticipatory bail petition.
  • Withdrawal, without more, is not an adjudication on the correctness of Order No. 07/2023-GST or on the petitioners' liability, if any, under GST law.
  • Readers should not treat this order as authority on when anticipatory bail is or is not available in GST-related proceedings — the Court never reached that question.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – governs anticipatory bail for a person apprehending arrest; invoked as the basis for the petition, though never adjudicated here.
  • Order No. 07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023 – the underlying departmental order cited as the trigger for the petitioners' apprehension of arrest; its contents are not set out in this order.

Decision – In Favour of

Neither party in any substantive sense. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioners' own request, on an endorsement made by their counsel, before any contest on merits. The Court recorded no finding — for or against the petitioners — on the availability of anticipatory bail or the validity of Order No. 07/2023-GST. This case should be read as one disposed of on withdrawal, not as a ruling favouring either the assessee or the department.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case No.: Crl OP(MD) No. 18520 of 2023
  • Case Type: Anticipatory Bail Petition, Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Sivagnanam
  • Date of Order: 27.11.2023
  • Petitioners: M/s. Mangal @ Mangal (rep. by P. Mookan) and Dhanalakshmi
  • Respondents: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli; Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore; Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B.E. Ashwin Bala Someshwerar
  • Counsel for Respondents: Mr. C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Special Public Prosecutor

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.