9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 370 - HC - GSTGrant of Anticipatory Bail - Petitioner is the landlord of the premises where his tenant, who runs a factory, allegedly evaded the tax by clandestine sale of Pan Masala.- Section 70 of G.S.T. Act - validity of initiation of counter proceedings - applicability/nonapplicability of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - A significant amount of time has been spent by both the parties to convince the Court or to counter that the procedure prescribed in Chapter XII of the CR.P.C. has not been complied with or followed in the present case, therefore, the very initiation of the proceeding is void and contrary to the law - It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the Director of media company Dabang Dunia but it is contended that they are neither concerned nor responsible for the unauthorized use of any sticker or ID card by any vehicle or driver implicated in the clandestine transportation of any taxable goods. Elaborate discussion of all the evidences, which is otherwise confidential, would not be appropriate as it may affect the case of either party. But on careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is considered appropriate to allow the petition, therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the petitioner's arrest or surrender before the police within a month of this order, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹ 10,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of tax evasion under the GST Act and IPC. 3. Petitioner's involvement and culpability. 4. Validity of statements recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act. 5. Compliance with procedural requirements under Cr.P.C. 6. Non-cooperation and apprehension of arrest. 7. Applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in GST cases. 8. Judicial precedents on anticipatory bail. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 23/2020, registered under Section 132(1)(a)(i) of the GST Act and Sections 409, 467, 471, and 120-B IPC. The petitioner argued that he was only the landlord of the premises where the alleged tax evasion occurred and had no involvement in the tenant's business activities. 2. Allegations of Tax Evasion under the GST Act and IPC: The Department alleged that the petitioner was involved in a large-scale tax evasion scheme related to the clandestine sale of Pan Masala. The petitioner was accused of being the mastermind behind the operations of multiple firms involved in the evasion, which amounted to crores of rupees. 3. Petitioner's Involvement and Culpability: The petitioner contended that he was merely the landlord and not involved in the tenant's business. However, the Department presented evidence, including statements from co-accused and the use of the petitioner's media company assets in the transportation of goods, to argue that the petitioner was deeply involved and was the ultimate financial beneficiary. 4. Validity of Statements Recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act: The petitioner argued that the statements of co-accused recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act were retracted as they were made under duress and threat. The petitioner contended that these statements should not be relied upon at this stage, especially since they did not lead to any recovery or supporting evidence. 5. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Cr.P.C.: Both parties debated the compliance with procedural requirements under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings was void due to non-compliance, while the Department maintained that all procedures were followed correctly. 6. Non-Cooperation and Apprehension of Arrest: The Department accused the petitioner of non-cooperation, citing instances where he refused to accept summons and alleged that a group of persons assaulted officials during a search. The petitioner countered that he had a reasonable apprehension of being treated unfairly and was willing to cooperate if his rights were protected. 7. Applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in GST Cases: The applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in GST cases was contested. The petitioner cited various judgments where courts granted anticipatory bail in similar cases, while the Department referred to judgments emphasizing the gravity of economic offences and the need for a different approach in granting bail. 8. Judicial Precedents on Anticipatory Bail: The court considered various precedents cited by both parties. It noted that the facts of each case are paramount in deciding anticipatory bail and that the law does not bar anticipatory bail in GST cases. The court also referred to previous orders in related cases, where bail was granted under similar circumstances. Conclusion: After careful consideration of the arguments, evidence, and precedents, the court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of ?10,00,000 with one solvent surety and was directed to cooperate with the investigation, appear before the officials periodically, and submit his passport. The court emphasized that the decision was made without commenting on the merits of the case. All pending IAs were closed, and the file was returned in a sealed cover.
|
