2022 (12) TMI 1407 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - availment of fraudulent input tax credit - evasion of tax - HELD THAT - It is an admitted position that petitioners had evaded the tax and got the benefit of input tax credit of Rs. 11.30 Crores. Hon ble Apex Court while granting the bail to Vinay Kant Ameta directed to him to deposit Rs. 200 Crores. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners and 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 petitioners on bail with a condition to deposit Rs. 2 Crores each by the petitioners before the respondent Department as under protest. The bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Saurabh Jindal S/o Shri Satyendra Kumar and Yashik Jindal S/o Shri Mahadev Jindal shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 their 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. arising from a case under Sections 132(1)(c)(f)(h) & (1) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought bail, claiming false implication and lack of show cause notices. They argued the offence is triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, and carries a maximum punishment of 5 years. They referenced various judgments to support their case, emphasizing the delay in trial and lack of notices. The respondent opposed, alleging tax evasion by the petitioners, who benefited from input tax credit amounting to Rs. 11.30 Crores. The respondent distinguished the case from that of another accused, highlighting the need for a substantial deposit similar to a previous court directive.

The court acknowledged the tax evasion by the petitioners and the significant input tax credit amount involved. Drawing parallels to a previous case where a substantial deposit was ordered, the court decided to grant bail to the petitioners with a condition to each deposit Rs. 2 Crores under protest. The court emphasized that this decision does not reflect any opinion on the case's merits. The bail conditions included personal bonds and sureties, with directions for the trial court to record the deposition of the deposit before attesting bail bonds.

In conclusion, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. were allowed, and the accused-petitioners were granted bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions. The court directed the trial court to ensure the deposit of Rs. 2 Crores from each petitioner and instructed the placement of a copy of the order in all connected files.