ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. A case in File No. IV/06/85/2013-14 SIV-CELL on the file of the respondent-State by the Commissioner of Central Excise (SIV-1) and Service Tax Cell, Mangaluru Central, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 89(1)(d)(ii)of Finance Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act') is filed against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police he has filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The case of the respondent-State is that the petitioner is running a proprietary concern under the name and style as M/s. JMJ Promotions. He has maintained accounts, audited and filed income tax returns for the financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14. He is required to pay the service tax on various services provided by him under the provisions of the Act. As per notification with effect from 20-6-2012 the service provider is liable to pay 25% and recipient 75% of the service tax. The total amount of service provided by the petitioner for the year 2012-13 is worth Rs. 19,35,27,063 and the petitioner is liable to pay service tax in a sum of Rs. 83,88,919/-. Similarly, during the year 2013-14 the total amount is Rs. 9,55,02,655/- and the tax payable is Rs. 29,09,461/-. In all, he has to pay service tax in a sum of Rs. 1,10,98,380/- and out of which petitioner paid certain amounts. For the remaining amount the respondent issued a summons on 13-8-2014 calling the petitioner to appear before it on 14-8-2014. The petitioner appeared and again on 20-10-2014 sent a letter informing that out of balance of service tax in a sum of Rs. 29,83,109/- he had paid Rs. 5 lakhs on 30-9-2014. But, respondent again issued a summons on 30-12-2014 to appear before it on 5-1-2015 and asked to bring balance sheet and other documents. It is stated that in the meantime the petitioner paid Rs. 24,83,107/- and contends that he had paid entire service tax amount. 3. Further, it is the case of the respondent that petitioner had supplied manpower to M/s. SKE and C-KCT Joint Venture. It is stated that respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 19,15,950/- from that company towards service tax and it has cleared it. 24,83,107/- and contends that he had paid entire service tax amount. 3. Further, it is the case of the respondent that petitioner had supplied manpower to M/s. SKE and C-KCT Joint Venture. It is stated that respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 19,15,950/- from that company towards service tax and it has cleared it. In turn, the said company deducted the said amount from the amount payable from it to the petitioner. The respondent sent a letter to the petitioner to produce relevant documents, but the petitioner failed to do the same. 4. It is the case of the respondent that on several occasions the petitioner was summoned to appear before it and asked to produce relevant documents. On one or the other reasons the petitioner had evaded to appear and even to produce the documents required. Finally, the respondent on 17-7-2015, vide Annexure-A, directed the petitioner to appear along with duty paid documents for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15 on 2-7-2015. The petitioner apprehending his arrest under Section 89(1) of the Act for not paying the service tax has filed this petition for anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that a false case has been registered against the petitioner and he is innocent of the offences alleged. He contends that entire service tax has been paid by him. The respondent had issued number of summons to him directing him to appear before it and asked to produce documents, but the petitioner contends that whenever it is possible to appear before them he appeared and he had produced relevant documents, but when he is out of station and for unavoidable circumstances he has pleaded his inability before the authorities for his exemption from appearance before them. The respondent in similar three cases has called the persons for enquiry, arrested them and produced before the learned Magistrate. The respondent is empowered to arrest persons under Section 91 of the Act and using such power even without filing any FIR only on authorisation to Superintendent the respondent may arrest him. He undertakes to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting the bail. 6. The respondent is empowered to arrest persons under Section 91 of the Act and using such power even without filing any FIR only on authorisation to Superintendent the respondent may arrest him. He undertakes to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting the bail. 6. The learned Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that it is the petitioner who has evaded the service tax payable to the Government, even though he had collected the same from the service provider. The tax amount is huge and the petitioner failed to comply any notice issued by it. It is contended that the petitioner had not appeared before it on many number of times on one or the other pretext. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that he is not ready to pay the tax collected to the State. The Act is very clear that those who evade the tax the Superintendent had power to arrest such persons and recover the relevant documents. He contends that it had already collected materials to show that this petitioner committed the offence alleged. Further, he strenuously contended that the petitioner has absconded since day one and he has not appeared before it and assisted in the matter. Therefore, bail may not be granted and requests the Court to dismiss the bail petition. 7. Perused the records. 8. On perusal of the material on record I find there is some force in the arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had already paid major portion of the service tax. It is true that petitioner could not appear before the respondent-Authority because he was otherwise engaged and due to unavoidable reasons. But whenever it is possible to appear he appeared before them and produced all the relevant documents. The learned Counsel for respondent contended that the petitioner is not appearing before it for further enquiry and not producing relevant documents. The petitioner submits that he had appeared and produced all the documents. But whenever it is possible to appear he appeared before them and produced all the relevant documents. The learned Counsel for respondent contended that the petitioner is not appearing before it for further enquiry and not producing relevant documents. The petitioner submits that he had appeared and produced all the documents. Be that as it may, the apprehension of the respondent could be met by directing the petitioner to appear before them every day for a period of two weeks, to co-operate with the further investigation, appear before it whenever notice is issued and his presence is required and not to involve in such type of offences. The petitioner-accused is permanent resident of Mangaluru having deep roots in the community. Further, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, the following: "ORDER Bail application is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in respect of case in File No. IV/06/85/2013-14 SIV-CELL of the respondent-Police on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O. subject to the following conditions: (1) He shall appear before the respondent-Authorities on 24-8-2015 without expecting any further notice by them; (2) He shall appear before the respondent-Authorities every day between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of two weeks; (3) He shall co-operate with the further investigation and shall appear before the respondent-Authorities whenever notice is issued and his presence is required by them without fail; (4) He shall appear before the respondent-Authorities whenever his presence is required by them without fail. (5) He shall not involve himself in any such kind of activities. (6) It is made clear that if he does not comply with any one of the conditions imposed on him, the respondent-Authority is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail."