2022 (4) TMI 124 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Bail - evasion of GST around of ₹ 21 crores - incriminating evidence against the petitioner is present or not - retraction of statements - HELD THAT - 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 petitioner on bail. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising from a case under Sections 132(1) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Allegations:
- The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the petitioner was wrongly accused and has been in custody since 24.12.2021.
- It was contended that the charge-sheet lacks incriminating evidence against the petitioner.
- The petitioner denied being the proprietor or owner of Sagar Industries and claimed to have given it to Abhishek Gehlot.
- The petitioner retracted his statement under Section 70 of the G.S.T. Act.
- Reference was made to previous judgments to support the bail application.

2. Respondent's Arguments:
- The senior standing counsel for the respondent alleged that the petitioner evaded GST amounting to around ?21 crores and is the main culprit.
- Statements recorded under Section 70 of the G.S.T. Act during the investigation were deemed admissible as evidence.
- Comparison was drawn with a previous case where bail was rejected, highlighting the gravity of the offense.

3. Court's Decision:
- The court, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, granted bail considering the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel and the overall circumstances.
- The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, ordering the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of ?50,000 with two sureties of ?25,000 each for his appearance before the trial court.

This judgment involved a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case related to offenses under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued against the petitioner's involvement, citing lack of incriminating evidence and denying ownership of the business in question. In contrast, the respondent's counsel emphasized the gravity of the alleged offense, accusing the petitioner of evading a significant amount of GST. The court, after considering both sides, granted bail to the petitioner, highlighting the need for the petitioner to appear before the trial court as per the specified conditions.