1 2025:CGHC:50719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1065 of 2025 • Aman Singh S/o Baccha Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o H.D.- 197, Phase-3, Kabir Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus • Director General Goods And Service Tax Intelligence (Dggi) Raipur Zone Officer Through Superintendent/appraiser/senior Intelligence Officer Office At 4th Floor, Rio Complex Fruit Market Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Krishna Kumar Tandon, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest for the offence under Section 132 of CGGST Act registered by Director General, Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI). VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.10.14 18:54:58 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that firstly the applicant has been summoned by the State GST, and when he was apprehending his arrest in that matter, he filed bail application being MCRCA No.919 of 2025 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 08.05.2025, a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-R-1 at page No.8. It is submitted that now the DGGI, Raipur has issued summon against the applicant under Section 70 and he is apprehending his arrest. 3. Mr. Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the provisions under Section 6(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017, and considering the applicant’s submission that the inquiry initiated by the respondent pertains to the same parties in respect of whom proceedings have already been initiated by the Chhattisgarh State GST authorities, there remains no apprehension left for invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the BNSS,2023. It is also submitted that impugned summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 issued by the respondent, is related to the routine investigation proceeding and at no stretch of imagination be considered to be an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. He also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Armour Security(India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Another (202 INSC 982, decided on 14.08.2025) has categorically clarified: 3 "However, if the Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be, finds that the matter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subject of inquiry or investigation by another authority, both authorities shall decide inter se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. In such a scenario, the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designated to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion. We say so because the taxable person, except for being afforded the statutory protection from duplication of proceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter." 4. Hence, the present application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant being devoid of having any reason to believe that the applicant may be arrested is not maintainable. 5. In view of the above and statement made by learned counsel for the parties where summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 issued by the respondent, is related to the routine investigation proceeding and cannot be considered to be an order authorizing arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, the instant bail application is disposed of. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali