2021 (2) TMI 684 - HC - GST

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - GST officer - taking bribe - connivance in evasion of GST - Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 7(a) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - There are far reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing of input credit/MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else. Not only this, someone later in chain in spite of being bona fide purchaser not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chain yet will have to suffer the conse-quences - The term passer has been repeatedly used. He is a person who acts as a Mediator between the dealers, transporters and the officers. He ensures the ground level implementation that the goods in transport reach the destination without checking. It is for this facility that the amount is charged and the said bounty is shared and distributed. If the dealer is sure that the goods sent in transit and the documents accompanying will not be checked or verified, he has leverage of playing havoc with the collection of tax. The goods can be sent by preparing the documents which are not accounted for and on reaching the destination, the documents are done away with leaving no trail of the transaction. This enables usage of the credit of the tax paid or suffered on the said goods in the manner which is suitable to the commercial interest of the dealer - The allegation in the present case are very serious. There is alleged connivance of the transporters, passers and the officials to facilitate the evasion of tax. The investigation is going on, it appears that the officials were being paid bribe on a monthly basis. There is no quibble that the liberty of a person is of utmost importance but when pitted against a sovereign function i.e. collection of tax which is life blood of the economy, the latter would prevail. Present is a case where arrest is imperative for fair and full investigation. The official position of petitioner can be used to influence witness or temper with evidence - Considering the complexity of the issue, the tax impact on the chain of sellers and purchasers, the material as on date with the investigating agency, the multi-dimensional aspects involved needing a deeper probe, no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for anticipatory bail against rejection in a case involving tax evasion, bribery, and corruption by officers of Excise and Taxation Department.

Analysis:
1. Allegations and Investigation: The FIR was filed based on information about tax evasion in collusion with Excise and Taxation Department officers. Bribe payments were made to ensure no checking of goods during transport. Call records revealed names of involved officers and the amounts paid to them. The FIR named several officers, including the petitioner.

2. Anticipatory Bail Petition: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing he was not named in the FIR and no recovery was made from him. The State argued that the petitioner's involvement was disclosed during investigation, supported by a seized register showing payments made to officers, including the petitioner.

3. GST and Tax Evasion: The judgment highlighted the importance of GST in ensuring free movement of goods and the impact of tax evasion on the entire chain of sellers and purchasers. The evasion of GST through connivance of transporters, passers, and officials was deemed a serious issue affecting tax collection.

4. Role of Passers: The judgment explained the role of passers as mediators facilitating tax evasion by ensuring goods reach their destination without inspection. The lack of verification allows for manipulation of documents and misuse of tax credits, impacting tax collection.

5. Need for Custodial Interrogation: Despite the petitioner not being directly named in the FIR or call records, the court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, discrepancies in file inspections, and the necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover the full extent of the alleged corruption.

6. Decision and Dismissal: The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, citing the importance of tax collection for the economy and the need for a fair and thorough investigation given the complexities and multi-dimensional aspects of the case. The petitioner's official position was seen as a potential influence on witnesses or evidence tampering.

7. Final Clarification: The judgment clarified that the discussion in the decision was solely for the purpose of the petition and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the investigation or trial, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive probe into the alleged tax evasion and corruption.