9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 159 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - economic offences - availment of irregular ITC - 73 fake firms were created without transaction of any goods - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2023 and other two persons involved in the present case namely Rajat and Ishu have already been enlarged on bail, though by virtue of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.; there are no antecedents against the petitioner for similar nature of offences and the punishment for the alleged offence related to evasion of tax is not more than 5 years and fine, as per relevant provisions of Section 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017 and in view of judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court passed in case of Ratnambar Kaushik 2022 (12) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT , but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mohit S/o Shri Ishwar Sharma shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so - the bail application is allowed.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with alleged offences under Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The bail application was filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to a case registered at the Office of the Additional Directorate General, DGGI Zonal Office, Jaipur, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and read with Section 132(5). The petitioner, Mohit, was employed in the firm of two other individuals named Rajat and Ishu, who were also implicated in the case. However, Rajat and Ishu were released on bail as the charge-sheet against them was not filed in time. The petitioner had been in custody since a specific date, with exceptions for a few days. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence did not exceed 5 years of imprisonment and fine, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. The petitioner relied on a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India, emphasizing the completion of investigation, potential trial duration, and the nature of evidence in the case. The learned counsel for the Union of India vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the creation of 73 fake firms without any goods transactions, resulting in a significant Input Tax Credit (ITC) amount. It was argued that due to the gravity of the offences, bail should not be granted in economic offence matters. However, after considering the arguments from both sides, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had been in custody while the other accused had been granted bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The absence of criminal antecedents, the nature of the alleged offence, and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case were considered. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Judge for his appearance on all hearing dates.
|
