Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner herein was arrested on 17.02.2021 for the offences under Section 132(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Sections 9 and 9A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The arrest memo was put to challenge in the writ petition. The core argument of the petitioner’s counsel was that the case of the petitioner would fall only under Section 132(1)(e) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 which is a non-cognizable offence.

3. Be that as it may in view of the grant of interim bail by this Court, the principal challenge may no longer survive.

The fact remains that the petitioner was arrested and was in custody for about six days. The petitioner has also remitted a sum of ₹ 2,67,39,619/- towards tax dues which aspect was taken note of for granting bail. The petitioner was also directed to stay within the Corporation limits of Madurai and appear before the first respondent daily. This condition was subsequently relaxed. Presently the petitioner is appearing before the first respondent twice a week.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the investigation by the respondents does not appear to be over. As and when the respondents decide to prosecute, the petitioner may be given liberty to question the same in the manner known to law.

5. Since I am of the view that re-arrest of the petitioner is not going to serve any purpose, interim bail earlier granted to the petitioner is made absolute. The condition imposed by this Court to appear before the respondents twice a week is also relaxed and the petitioner undertakes before this Court that he would appear before the authority concerned as and when required.

6. Leaving open all the contentions of both the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.