9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 986 - HC - GSTGrant of Bail - tax evasion - compoundable offences or not - Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The maximum punishment awardable under the Act of 2017 being five years, offences being compoundable, filing of the complaint against the petitioner after completion of the investigation and absence of criminal antecedents; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Pradeep Kumar Bansal S/o Nagarmal Gupta shall be released on bail, subject to conditions imposed - Decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - arrest, violation of mandatory provisions, tax evasion allegations, continuation of investigation, absence of criminal antecedents, maximum punishment, compoundable offences. Analysis: The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested in connection with an FIR under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The petitioner was initially charged under Section 132 of the Act and later under various subsections of Section 132(1), raising concerns about the legality of the arrest. The petitioner's counsel argued that the arrest was flawed, citing violations of mandatory provisions during the arrest and subsequent procedures. It was highlighted that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period without essential notices for adjudication of tax liability, prosecution sanction, or criminal antecedents. The petitioner sought release on bail, emphasizing the compoundable nature of the offences and the maximum punishment of five years under the Act. The Goods and Services Tax Department opposed the bail application, alleging tax evasion of a substantial amount by the petitioner. The department emphasized the ongoing investigation and the gravity of the allegations, asserting that the petitioner should not be granted bail due to the seriousness of the accusations. However, the court considered the arguments presented by both sides, evaluating factors such as the length of the petitioner's custody, the nature of the offences, the absence of criminal history, and the maximum punishment prescribed under the Act. Despite refraining from expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the court found it just and appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the court directed the release of the accused-petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the mentioned FIR. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, with strict adherence to the conditions specified under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. This decision balanced the considerations of the seriousness of the allegations with the petitioner's rights, ensuring compliance with legal procedures while addressing the concerns raised during the hearing.
|
