9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 457 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - no notice for recovery of G.S.T. has been issued against the applicant - HELD THAT - It is a settled law that while granting bail the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation the nature of the evidence in support thereof the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail the character of the accused the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused his role and involvement in the offence his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind the ratio of the Apex Court s judgment in the case of State of STATE OF RAJASTHAN JAIPUR VERSUS BALCHAND @ BALIAY 1977 (9) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT RAM GOVIND UPADHYAY VERSUS SUDARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT PRASANTA KUMAR SARKAR VERSUS ASHIS CHATTERJEE AND ORS. 2010 (10) TMI 1199 - SUPREME COURT and MAHIPAL VERSUS RAJESH KUMAR @ POLIA ANR. 2019 (12) TMI 1461 - SUPREME COURT the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances but without expressing any opinion on the merits this is deemed a fit case for grant of bail. Hence the present bail application is allowed. Let applicant Vikas Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The issues include the legality of the arrest, severity of the alleged offences, absence of notice for recovery of GST, non-ascertainment of penalty or taxes, compoundable nature of the offences, and the applicant's criminal history. Legal Judgment: Legality of Arrest: The applicant was arrested without assigning any reason to believe or any satisfaction as required by the Act. The court noted this as a prima facie concern. Severity of Offences: The alleged offences are punishable with up to 5 years of imprisonment, which is a significant factor considered by the court in deciding the bail application. Absence of Notice for Recovery of GST: No notice for recovery of GST has been issued against the applicant, raising questions about the legality of the arrest and the basis for the charges. Non-Ascertainment of Penalty or Taxes: As of the hearing date, penalty or taxes had not been ascertained as per the Act, indicating a lack of clarity on the financial aspects of the case. Compoundable Nature of Offences: The offences alleged are compoundable in nature and triable by a Magistrate, which influenced the court's decision in granting bail. Applicant's Criminal History: The applicant had a criminal history related to similar offences, but the court considered the nature of the offences and the fact that the complaint for recovery of tax had not been filed. Decision and Conditions of Bail: Considering various legal precedents and the totality of facts, the court granted bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions. These conditions include restrictions on influencing witnesses, attending court proceedings, refraining from criminal activities, surrendering the passport, and more. Conclusion: The judgment allowed the bail application for the applicant, emphasizing that the observations made were limited to the bail application and should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court was directed to proceed independently based on the evidence presented.
|
