2021 (6) TMI 478 - HC - GST

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - allegation of tax evasion is against the company, M/ Mohan Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. - Applicants are principal officers of that company or not - HELD THAT - At present, since the applicants are not shown to be principal or other officers of the company and the director of the company has been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are found entitled to interim protection. Applicants are directed to be released on interim anticipatory bail till the next date fixed, on their furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned OR before the court concerned subject to conditions imposed - application alowed.

Summary

Issues:
Anticipatory bail application under Sections 132(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J., pertains to an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants against their potential arrest under specific sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicants, Devendra Kumar Bhati and Rajan, are seeking protection from arrest as they are alleged to be brokers and agents of a company accused of tax evasion, M/s Mohan Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. The applicants are not the principal officers of the company, and it was argued that since the directors of the company had already been granted interim anticipatory bail, the applicants should also be entitled to similar protection. The counsel for the applicants contended that the applicants should be granted interim protection due to their role as agents/brokers and not being principal officers of the company.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the DG, GST, argued that the company had engaged in significant tax evasion, and certain evidence during the investigation pointed towards this fact. However, since the applicants were not shown to be principal or other officers of the company and the directors had already been granted anticipatory bail, the court found the applicants entitled to interim protection. The court ordered that in the event of the applicants' arrest, they shall be released on interim anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ?50,000 each with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions. These conditions include making themselves available for interrogation, refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, not leaving the country without court permission, and the investigating officer being allowed to file for cancellation of bail in case of default.

The judgment carefully considered the roles of the applicants as brokers and agents of the company accused of tax evasion, balancing the need for investigation with the applicants' right to seek anticipatory bail. The court's decision to grant interim protection to the applicants, despite the serious allegations against the company, was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants were not principal officers directly involved in the alleged offenses.