2022 (12) TMI 764 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - clandestine procurement as well as supply of raw tobacco with an intent to facilitate the actual manufacturer for unaccounted manufacture and supply of Jarda in contravention of the applicable GST/CE law with mala-fide intent to evade the duty levied by the Government - HELD THAT - The petitioner is behind the bars since 21.07.2022. Complaint has been filed on 17.09.2022. Under Section 132 of the Act of 2017 alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to five years and with fine. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of LALIT GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR 2022 (8) TMI 1319 - SC ORDER did not interfere with the impugned order dt.07.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2021 (9) TMI 1347 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT S.B. CRLMB No.13042/2021, whereby the bail application of petitioner therein was dismissed in which he was arrested 22.02.2021. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent was that the petitioner and other persons had taken part in various firms and also claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs.18.91 Crores without any transportation of goods. However, Hon ble Apex Court decided the aforesaid Case on 26.08.2022 and since then the accused had remained in custody for a period of about one year and six months. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner pertains to an amount of Rs.15,57,28,345/- and custody period is about three months, therefore, looking to the above facts, circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court deems it not proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Instant bail application is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (k), and (l) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 132(5) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The accused-petitioner, engaged in trading raw tobacco, sought bail contending that the allegations in the remand application were not against him. It was argued that he did not evade duty as he was not a manufacturer and the duty amount was overstated. The defense highlighted that no documents were seized, and the petitioner had been in custody since July 2022, with a long trial expected. The defense also claimed that an employee's statement was coerced, and the petitioner's statement was to be recorded in jail. The defense cited various judgments supporting bail.

The respondent opposed bail, alleging the petitioner's involvement in clandestine procurement and supply of raw tobacco for unaccounted manufacturing, evading substantial duties. Detailed calculations showed the alleged duty evasion amount. The respondent argued that the petitioner was actively involved in facilitating tax evasion, supported by GPS and toll data analysis. The respondent relied on judgments emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases.

The court noted the gravity of the alleged offense, the substantial amount of duty evasion, and the accused's custody period. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to consider various factors in bail decisions. The court dismissed the bail application considering the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the offense, as well as the accused's custody period, leading to the conclusion that bail was not appropriate in this case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail application, considering the significant duty evasion amount, the nature of the offense, and the accused's custody period. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the need to carefully evaluate bail applications in such cases.