9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 346 - HC - Service TaxGrant of anticipatory Bail - offence punishable under Section 89(1)(a) of Finance Act, 1994 - evasion of service tax - non-appearance before the court and non-payment of service tax - case of petitioner is that because of the non-communication and inadvertence he did not appear before the Court and has not paid the service tax due and as such the NBW has been issued - Held that - It is not in dispute that a case was registered under Section 89(1)(a) of Finance Act, 1994 and the petitioner-accused No.2 has also not appeared before the Court below and as such the NBW has been issued since 24.04.2015. No doubt by going through the records it indicates inspite of issuance of NBW by the learned Magistrate it was not possible to secure and has evaded the service of the NBW - But, now the petitioner-accused No.2 has come forward before this Court that he is going to appear before the Court regularly and in the first instance, he is going to deposit ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) out of the remaining dues and subsequently he will be regular in appearing before the Court and for payment. By keeping the said undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner-accused No.2 is enlarged on anticipatory bail it is going to meet the ends of justice - the petitioner-accused No.2 herein is released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions imposed - petition allowed.
Issues:
Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 89(1)(a) of Finance Act, 1994 - Alleged evasion of service tax - Non-appearance before the Court - Issuance of NBW - Submission of undertaking for payment and regular appearance. Analysis: The petitioner, accused No.2, filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 89(1)(a) of Finance Act, 1994. The complaint alleged that the petitioner's firm evaded service tax amounting to ?1,41,45,378 in contravention of relevant sections of the Act. It was stated that due to miscommunication and inadvertence, the petitioner did not appear before the Court, resulting in the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against him. The petitioner, through his counsel, expressed readiness to deposit ?20,00,000 before the Court and assured regular payment of the remaining tax and penalty. The petitioner emphasized the difficulty in arranging funds if detained in jail, seeking bail on these grounds. The Central Government Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the bail, labeling the petitioner as a chronic defaulter of service tax exceeding ?1,41,45,378. The counsel argued that the petitioner's history of non-appearance and absconding for three years indicated a risk of further evasion if granted bail. The respondent contended that releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail might lead to non-payment of the due amount. The Court carefully considered the arguments and reviewed the trial court's order. Upon examination, it was found that the petitioner had not appeared before the lower court despite the NBW issued against him. However, the petitioner now assured the Court of regular appearances and a payment of ?20,00,000 initially, followed by consistent payments. Considering the petitioner's undertaking and imposing stringent conditions, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court ordered the petitioner to execute a personal bond, deposit ?20,00,000 to the tax authorities within two weeks, appear regularly before the Court, continue depositing the due tax, and not leave the Court's jurisdiction without permission. Failure to comply with the conditions would result in automatic cancellation of the bail order.
|
