9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1049 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of anticipatory Bail - non-payment of CGST even after collecting from customers - offence u/s 132 CGST Act - non-bailable offences or not - HELD THAT - The allegations against the accused company is that they had collected the CGST from the clients of the company to the tune of ₹ 24.96 crores and not deposited the same with the government, thus committed offence u/s 132 CGST Act which is non bailable offence. Merely depositing of ₹ 7.7 crores do not in any manner drop the offence in bailable category. As far as the allegations against the present accused is concerned, he is director of company who is also responsible for affairs of company and matter is yet to be investigated from him. The huge economic loss to exchequer is caused and this practice appears writ large in business community. Merely on the basis of the fact that department has the power to arrest no apprehension can be inferred at this stage when the department admittedly saying that they have not even thought of arresting the accused. The co accused is still in custody and have not released on bail. The bonafide of the department cannot be doubted at this stage - the present application of anticipatory bail is dismissed - decided against applicant.
Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail application under section 438 CrPC for accused Navneet Singh. Analysis: The judgment involved the consideration of an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused Navneet Singh under section 438 CrPC. The accused was the Director of a company engaged in providing recruitment services and was alleged to be involved in a case of GST evasion amounting to ?24.96 crores. The company had collected CGST from clients but failed to deposit it with the government, leading to a shortfall in GST payment. The accused was summoned for investigation but sought exemption due to international travel and quarantine. The respondent argued that the accused had not cooperated with the investigation, absconded, and evaded tax liabilities. The co-accused was arrested, and the department expressed the intention to arrest the present accused. The accused's counsel argued that there was no determination or assessment of liability yet, and the accused should be granted anticipatory bail based on summons alone. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable as the requirements of section 438 CrPC were not met. The department had not proposed the arrest of the accused, only issued summons for investigation. The respondent emphasized that no belief of imminent arrest existed, and interim protection against arrest was not warranted. The respondent cited legal precedents to support the argument that the accused's failure to cooperate in the inquiry and the ongoing investigation justified denial of anticipatory bail. The respondent also highlighted that economic offences causing government revenue loss typically do not merit anticipatory bail. The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the substantial amount involved, and the accused's role as a director responsible for the company's affairs. Emphasizing the economic loss to the exchequer, the court noted that the offence under section 132 of the CGST Act was non-bailable. The court referred to precedents where similar economic offences were deemed serious, leading to denial of bail. The court found that the mere deposit of a portion of the liability did not mitigate the offence's severity. Considering the lack of apprehension of arrest by the department and the co-accused's continued custody, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, stating that the accused's bonafide could not be doubted at that stage. In conclusion, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, the economic loss caused, and the lack of imminent arrest as reasons for denial. The court directed the application to be disposed of accordingly and ordered the dissemination of the order through appropriate channels.
|
