2022 (8) TMI 1378 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Bail - evasion of GST - petitioner claims that petitioner is neither owner of Ayodhya Food Products or nor partner of the firm - Retraction of statements under Section 70 of GST Act - HELD THAT - Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Suresh Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
- The bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to a case under Sections 132(1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The previous bail application had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge.
- The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that he was wrongly implicated, not the owner or partner of the firm, and had retracted his statement given under Section 70 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that the trial might take a long time, and similarly situated co-accused had been granted bail.

2. Issue: Arguments by the petitioner's counsel
- The petitioner's counsel cited various judgments to support the bail application, emphasizing that the petitioner should be granted bail based on precedents and the circumstances of the case.

3. Issue: Arguments by the respondent's counsel
- The respondent's counsel opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner had evaded a significant amount of GST and was the main culprit. It was argued that witnesses had identified the petitioner as the responsible person, and the matter should be treated as an economic offense. The investigation was ongoing, and no chargesheet had been filed.

4. Issue: Judgments relied upon by the respondent
- The respondent's counsel cited multiple judgments to support the opposition to the bail application, highlighting the gravity of the offense and the pending investigation as reasons to deny bail.

5. Issue: Court's decision
- The court, after considering the arguments from both sides and the facts of the case, decided to grant bail to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the decision to grant bail did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.

6. Outcome:
- The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to furnish a personal bond and sureties for his release on bail, with conditions for his appearance before the court on hearing dates.