2024 (10) TMI 1613 - HC - GST

Grant of Regular Bail - evasion of GST - offences punishable under Sections 132 (1) (d), etc. of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The allegations against the applicant are that he caused a loss of Rs. 8.90 crore, an amount collected as GST from various firms, which he did not deposit with the Government. The procedure for the recovery of such tax is governed by the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Chapter XV. Section 76 specifies that if tax is collected but not paid to the Government, then the Act itself prescribes the procedure and mode for initiating recovery proceedings. The applicant has already deposited 60 Lakh Rupees before the authority. The applicant has expressed his willingness to deposit 10% of the alleged amount. In this regard, an undertaking has been filed on his behalf stating that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 90,00,000/- (Ninety Lakh Rupees) within a period of seven days. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI 2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT as well as in the case of GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT . Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that bail is a rule and jail is exception as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant/s on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant/s is/are ordered to be released on regular bail on fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offences under Sections 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The applicant, a Director of a company providing manpower supply services, was implicated in a case where it was alleged that the company collected taxes from government clients but did not remit them to the government. The applicant claimed innocence and stated that the statements were obtained under duress without a review. The applicant had already deposited a significant amount before the authority and expressed willingness to pay 10% of the alleged amount. The applicant sought regular bail citing the nature of the offence and cooperation in the investigation.

The respondent opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicant, as the company's Director, collected a substantial sum in taxes but failed to remit them to the government. The respondent highlighted discrepancies in financial records, false information provided, and attempts to mislead the investigation. The respondent contended that the applicant's actions resulted in a significant loss to the government, and therefore, bail should be denied.

The Court, in considering the grant of bail, assessed various factors, including the severity of the offence, the accused's involvement, and the likelihood of abscondence. It noted that the investigation was complete, recovery procedures were in place, and the accused had already made deposits and offered to pay a portion of the alleged amount. The Court referred to relevant legal precedents and emphasized the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, safeguarding personal liberty under the Constitution.

After evaluating the facts and allegations, the Court granted regular bail to the applicant, subject to specific conditions. The conditions included executing a personal bond, surrendering the passport, reporting to the police station monthly, providing contact information, and refraining from illegal activities. The applicant was also required to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe. Breach of conditions could lead to bail cancellation, and the trial court was directed not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made during the bail grant.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the bail application, setting out detailed conditions for the applicant's release and emphasizing compliance with the specified terms.