VIRAL NARENDRA GOSALIA v. COURT OF KARNATAKA

crores through his proprietary firms and further facilitated fictitious transactions with various entities, including M/s. Samruddhi Trading Company, M/s. Navoday Enterprises Ltd., and M/s. Mini Boss Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., among others.

#4. In brief, the petitioner is alleged to have colluded with various persons to generate fabricated invoices for the supply of FMCG goods without any actual movement of goods or rendering of services. Furthermore, he is accused of diverting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10469 WP No. 6016 of 2025 the supply of invoiced goods to other entities in the open market without issuing corresponding invoices in the names of the recipient companies, thereby enabling those companies to claim wrongful ITC. A review of the application for the petitioner’s remand reveals a specific allegation that the petitioner-accused No. 3 attempted to influence individuals into providing false statements to authorities regarding those who orchestrated the fake invoicing scheme, and further, that he destroyed evidence by deleting WhatsApp messages, thus misleading or hampering the investigation. Submissions

#5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri MT Nananiah, appearing for the petitioner, primarily submitted that the petitioner’s arrest is vitiated on the ground of non-compliance with Section 35(3) of BNSS, which mandates the issuance of a notice of appearance to any person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. Non- compliance with this statutory requirement, he contended, is contrary to settled law as affirmed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. He further noted that this Court has opined in MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2022) that a notice of appearance under Section 41-A of the CrPC (i.e. Section 35(3) of BNSS) is mandatory in cases involving economic offences. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10469 WP No. 6016 of 2025

5.1. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel argued that since the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to appear before the investigative authorities, his arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, cannot be permitted as a justifiable restriction on liberty under the law. This non-compliance amounts to a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional writ remedy and sought the relief of quashing the remand order under this Court’s inherent powers.

5.2. In addition, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the petitioner’s arrest by the respondent also violates Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that a notice be issued by the proper officer at least six months before the expiry of five years from the date of wrongful availment of ITC, directing such assessee to show cause as to why the specified amount should not be paid. In support, reliance is placed on: ORDER (i) The instant Petition is partly allowed by granting Bail to the Petitioner-accused No. 3 in Crime No. 03/2025 (F. No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1506/2024-Gr C- 01-O/o Pr ADG-DGGI-ZU), pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:10469 WP No. 6016 of 2025 (ii) The Chief Superintendent of Police, Parappana Agrahara, Central Prison, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to release forthwith the petitioner in the aforesaid crime number, subject following conditions: a) The Petitioner - Accused No. 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of his release; b) The Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses; c) The Petitioner shall appear before the investigating authorities as and when required; d) The Petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in the future; e) The concerned Jail Authorities are hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith without any delay and immediately upon receipt of this order, if he is not required for any other cases, if any. f) The Registry is directed to communicate this Order to the Jail Authorities concerned forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 125