2020 (12) TMI 937 - HC - GST

Grant of anticipatory bail - evasion of GST - bogus bills - It is alleged that the tax was being evaded by ensuring that there was no checking or verification of the documents or goods while being transported to from State of Punjab - HELD THAT - It would be necessary to glance at working of Goods and Services Tax (GST). With the introduction of GST regime one of the object worked upon was free movement of goods by removal of barriers and Information Collection Centres. The responsibility was shifted upon the Excise and Taxation Officers/ officials and more so on the mobile wing of the department. Under the GST there is an inter-connected chain of sellers and purchasers as the purchaser gets the credit of tax paid or suffered by seller. The chain can be within the State or PAN-India. One link in the chain being ingenuine doctored or nonexistant would impact the entire chain. The nature of allegation in present case of evasion of GST requires a deeper probe. There are far reaching ramifications which may vary from allowing of input credit/ MODVAT of tax not paid to the Government to an eventuality that the credit of tax paid on some other product is used for something else. Not only this someone later in chain in spite of being a bonafide purchaser not aware of the earlier misdeed in the chain yet will have to suffer the consequences - The allegation in the present case are very serious. There is alleged connivance of the transporters passers and the officials to facilitate the evasion of tax. The investigation is going on it appears that the officials were being paid bribe on monthly basis. The investigating agency had initiated action on the basis of the the information. The allegations against the petitioner is that he is running a transport business and in connivance with the officials of Excise and Taxation Depatment a racket is being run with the help of others to dent the public exchequer. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery is to be made is not well founded. Merely the fact that the computers and registers are already with vigilance department would not be enough to say that custodial investigation of the petitioenr is not required. Rather it is during investigation of the petitioenr that full picture would emerge - The material evidence is in possession of the petitioner. He is in a position not only to help himself out by not producing or tampering with the evidence but would be of great help to the official of the Excise and Taxation Department named in the FIR. From the pleadings and arguments it is forth coming that it was a well knitted trap for evasion of tax. The officials were being paid on monthly basis and the petitioner was in a position to even negotiate for the monthly payment to be made. There is no quibble that the liberty of a person is of utmost importance. But when personal liberty is pitted against a sovereign function i.e. collection of tax which is life blood of the economy the latter would prevail. Present is a case where arrest is imperative for fair and full investigation - Considering the complexity of the issue the tax impact on chain of sellers and purchasers the material as on date with the investigating agency the multi dimensional aspects involved which needs a deeper probe no case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving tax evasion, bribery, and corruption allegations under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving FIR under various sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The FIR alleged tax evasion in connivance with Excise and Taxation Department officials. The petitioner's office was raided, and incriminating evidence was seized. The petitioner argued that no further recovery was needed as the Vigilance Bureau already had the necessary evidence. The State Counsel contended that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the seriousness of the allegations. The court examined the nature of GST and the impact of tax evasion on the entire chain of sellers and purchasers under the GST regime.

The court highlighted the role of a "passer" as a mediator facilitating tax evasion by ensuring goods reach their destination without inspection. The allegations involved serious connivance between transporters, passers, and officials to evade tax. The court noted ongoing investigations and the seriousness of the allegations, emphasizing the need for a fair and full investigation. The court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail, stating that the petitioner's involvement in the scheme required custodial interrogation for a comprehensive probe.

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that he could not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, noting his close involvement with the accused officials. The court emphasized the importance of tax collection for the economy, prioritizing it over individual liberty in this case. Considering the complexity of the issues, the impact on the tax chain, and the evidence with the investigating agency, the court found no grounds for granting pre-arrest bail. The court clarified that its decision was specific to the bail petition and not a judgment on the investigation or trial merits.