9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 870 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Bail - involvement in evasion of taxes and Cess - supply of goods without issuing invoices - period of 2019 to 2021 - cognizable offence under Section 132(1)(i) AGST Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, taking into account the alleged amount of evasion of tax, the case falls under Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act and the punishment prescribed for such an offence may extend to 5 (five) years and with fine - that apart, the offence report has already been laid in the instant case, and therefore, the undisputed position is that for the purpose of further investigation, custodial detention of the petitioner is not essential. As per the materials on record, there is no indication that the petitioner, if granted bail, is likely to evade the trial or there is an apprehension of his tampering with the witnesses. Apart from all these, this Court has also taken into fact that during the period of entire investigation, the petitioner has been in custody for 65 (sixty five) days. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail - the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the abovementioned case on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati and other conditions imposed - application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. 2. Allegations under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. 3. Considerations for granting bail in economic offences. 4. Arguments by the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 5. Relevant judgments cited by both parties. 6. Conditions for granting bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC: The petitioner applied for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. in connection with BI (E.O) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021, citing his prolonged detention since 12.07.2021 and the completion of the investigation. 2. Allegations under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017: The petitioner faced allegations of evading taxes and Cess amounting to over ?5 crores by supplying goods without issuing invoices from 2019 to 2021. The investigation revealed a total evasion of ?22,77,13,211.04, inclusive of applicable Tax, Cess, Penalty, and Interest. This constituted a cognizable offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act, punishable by up to five years of imprisonment and a fine. 3. Considerations for Granting Bail in Economic Offences: The court considered the severity of the economic offence, the potential punishment, and the fact that the investigation was complete. The court also evaluated whether the petitioner's release would pose a risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses, or if there was a likelihood of absconding. 4. Arguments by the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor: The petitioner's counsel argued that with the investigation complete and the offence report filed, there was no risk of tampering with evidence. He cited the Supreme Court judgments in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI and P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing the principles for granting bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the gravity of the economic offence and citing Supreme Court judgments in Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI, which stress a stringent approach towards economic offences. 5. Relevant Judgments Cited by Both Parties: - Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI: The Supreme Court held that seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration but not the sole factor in granting bail. - P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement: The Supreme Court outlined factors for considering bail, such as the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and possibility of tampering with evidence. - Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a different approach to bail in economic offences due to their impact on the economy. - Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI: The Supreme Court reiterated the serious view required for economic offences and the considerations for granting bail. 6. Conditions for Granting Bail: The court granted bail with stringent conditions: - The petitioner must furnish a bail bond of ?1,00,000 with two sureties. - The petitioner must not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission. - The petitioner must deposit his passport/visa. - The petitioner must not tamper with evidence or contact witnesses. - The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), may impose additional conditions. Conclusion: The court, balancing the severity of the economic offence and the petitioner's right to bail, granted bail with strict conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance and prevent any tampering with the judicial process. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
