Facts of the Case

The petitioners, M/s. Mangal @ Mangal (represented by its Managing Partner, P. Mookan) and S. Babulal, approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court by way of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition was filed apprehending arrest in connection with the order in Original No.07/2023-GST, dated 11.07.2023, passed on the file of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli. 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. When the matter came up on 27.11.2023 before Justice V. Sivagnanam, the counsel for the petitioners sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted, and the petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings arising from Order No.07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023.
  2. Whether, upon the petitioners' own request to withdraw, any adjudication on the merits of the anticipatory bail plea was called for.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners had sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with the proceedings under Order No.07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023.
  • On the date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B.E. Ashwin Bala Someshwerar, sought the Court's permission to withdraw the petition and made a formal endorsement to that effect, without pressing the matter for a decision on merits.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The respondents were represented by Mr. RMS. Sethuraman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
  • As the petition was disposed of on the petitioners' own request for withdrawal, no substantive arguments on the merits of the anticipatory bail application were recorded or required from the respondents.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Court recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect.
  • Permission to withdraw was granted, and recording the endorsement, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
  • No reasons were assigned and no findings were rendered on the question of anticipatory bail or on the underlying Order No.07/2023-GST, since the petition was closed at the petitioners' own instance.

Important Clarification

  • This is a short, procedural order recording withdrawal of an anticipatory bail petition; it does not lay down any principle of GST law.
  • The order contains no adjudication, express or implied, on the validity, correctness, or merits of Order No.07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023.
  • It also contains no finding on whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail, since the plea was withdrawn before any such determination was made.
  • Readers should not treat this order as precedent on any substantive question under the CGST/TNGST framework; its value is confined to the fact of withdrawal and disposal of this particular petition.

Sections Involved

  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — provision under which anticipatory bail is sought by a person apprehending arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.
  • Order No.07/2023-GST dated 11.07.2023 — the underlying order of the GST authorities in connection with which the anticipatory bail petition was filed; its contents are not before the Court in this order and are not discussed or examined herein.

Decision – In Favour of

Neither party. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioners' own counsel, with no adjudication on merits either for the petitioners or the GST Department. The disposal is purely procedural in nature.

Related Case Laws

A connected petition arising from the same underlying Order No.07/2023-GST — CRL OP(MD) No.18520 of 2023, filed by the same firm, M/s. Mangal @ Mangal, along with a different second petitioner, Dhanalakshmi — was also disposed of as withdrawn by the same Bench, before the same Judge, on the same date, 27.11.2023. That matter has been covered separately on this site; it is a distinct case with a different case number and a different second petitioner, and should not be confused with the present petition.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Criminal Jurisdiction)
  • Case No.: CRL OP(MD) No.18492 of 2023
  • Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Sivagnanam
  • Date of Order: 27.11.2023
  • Petitioners: M/s. Mangal @ Mangal (rep. by Managing Partner, P. Mookan) and S. Babulal
  • Respondents: Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli; Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore; Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tiruchirappalli
  • Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. B.E. Ashwin Bala Someshwerar
  • Counsel for Respondents: Mr. RMS. Sethuraman, Additional 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.