2023 (4) TMI 1126 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - alleged amount of evasion of GST is less than Rs. 5 crores - bailable offence - petitioner is in custody for 1 year, 6 months and 16 days and the case is still at the summoning stage on the basis of the complaint filed by the GST authorities - there are number of accused in the present case and most of the accused have already been extended the benefit of regular bail including co-accused namely, Rohit Mehta and Gurbax Lal who have already been granted default bail. HELD THAT - The quantum of amount which the petitioner is involved is yet to be decided at the time of trial. Under Section 132 of the GST Act even if the amount is more than Rs. 5 crores, the maximum sentence is five years as per the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 1 years. The complaint is still at the summoning stage. The other two accused have already been extended the benefit of default bail and one more co-accused namely Harsimranjot Singh Bambhi has been granted regular bail by this Court vide Annexure P-2 who is stated to be at parity with the present petitioner. Considering the total custody of the petitioner which is more than 1 years, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the petitioner - The petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case involving offenses under Section 132 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 132 of the Punjab Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Bail Application:
The petitioner filed a second petition seeking regular bail in a case involving offenses under GST Acts. The petitioner had been in custody for over 1.5 years, with the case still at the summoning stage. The petitioner argued for bail citing parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail. The total disputed amount was claimed to be less than Rs. 5 crores, making it a bailable offense under Section 132 of the GST Act.

Issue 2 - Arguments:
The petitioner's counsel highlighted the prolonged custody, the bail granted to similarly situated co-accused, and the disputed amount being less than Rs. 5 crores. The respondent's counsel disputed the claimed amount, stating it to be Rs. 13 crores.

Issue 3 - Judgment:
The court noted that the amount involved was yet to be determined at trial and even if it exceeded Rs. 5 crores, the maximum sentence was five years. Considering the petitioner's extended custody, the bail granted to other accused, and the parity with a co-accused already granted bail, the court deemed it fit to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to fulfilling bail bond requirements. It was clarified that the decision to grant bail was based on the circumstances and custody duration, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.