2017 (5) TMI 442 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Anticipatory bail - Sale of Pan Masala and Tobacco within the State of Gujarat - misdeclaration that goods sold outside the State of Gujarat to avoid taxes - Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Held that - From the facts of the case and from the submissions of the parties, the role of the applicant-accused could be comprehended. Submission on behalf of the applicant could not be brushed aside lightly that all the purchases were made after making advance payment and the refund orders were given by the authority after verification by the Value Added Tax officials. In any view, the investigation of the case could be said to be based on the documentary material. It cannot be said that custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable or imperative in the facts and circumstances - further looking to the allegations and the nature thereof as well as severity of punishment, prayer for anticipatory bail deserves to be favourably consider. It was pointed out that as far as the offence under Section 85 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act is concerned, punishment provided is for six months. The investigation would be on the basis of documentary material. It is trite that denial of anticipatory bail should result into a punishment. Application allowed - Bail granted, subject to stringent conditions - decided in favor of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR for various offences under IPC and Gujarat Value Added Tax Act.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused in connection with a FIR registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as offences under Sections 85(1)(b),(c),(f),(g), 85(2)(g), 85(4), and 85(6) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act. The FIR alleged that the accused, along with others, engaged in a criminal conspiracy to evade tax by selling products within Gujarat while projecting sales outside the state. The accused is accused of misusing sales tax forms and submitting false documents to procure tax refunds amounting to significant sums for his firm and his son's company.

The applicant's counsel argued that the refund was obtained legitimately, all purchases were made through proper channels, and the assessment order was served after the FIR was lodged. The counsel highlighted that co-accused were granted bail, and the assessment order was under challenge. The prosecution contended that the accused was involved in a serious offence affecting public revenue and should not be granted bail based on the severity of the allegations.

The Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the role of the accused, and the nature of the offences. It noted that custodial interrogation may not be imperative as the investigation was based on documentary evidence. Comparisons were drawn with other accused who were granted bail or anticipatory bail. The Court applied legal precedents and principles to the case, emphasizing the need for stringent conditions if anticipatory bail were to be granted.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, directing the accused to execute a personal bond and furnish surety. Various conditions were imposed, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, surrendering the passport, and appearing before the police station on specified dates. The Court clarified that the investigating agency could still seek remand if necessary, and the observations in the order were limited to the grant of anticipatory bail.

In conclusion, the application for anticipatory bail was allowed with stringent conditions to ensure the accused's cooperation with the investigation and compliance with legal procedures. The judgment highlighted the need to balance the interests of justice with the rights of the accused during the pre-arrest stage.