9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 119 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - evasion of tax - general offender/economic offender - applicability of provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - It is admitted position that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded tax of ₹ 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. The Hon ble Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. Case of the petitioner is similar to the Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India 2021 (12) TMI 1306 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT and bail of the Vinaykant Ameta was dismissed by this Court and Hon ble Apex Court had granted the bail of Vinaykant Ameta on depositing of ₹ 200 Crores. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Thus, it is not considered a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - the bail application stands dismissed.
Issues:
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(A), (F), (H), (I), (L) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. Petitioner's Submission: - The petitioner, a Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, claims false implication. - Initial complaint lacked allegations against the petitioner, with subsequent allegations based on retracted statements. - Cites precedents for bail based on similar cases and compoundable offence. - Argues lack of concrete evidence, compoundable nature of the offence, and delays in trial. 2. Precedents Cited: - Numerous judgments cited in support of the petitioner's case, emphasizing bail granted in similar situations. 3. Respondent's Argument: - Alleges tax evasion of ?869 Crores by petitioner and another director. - Accuses the company of creating fake firms for tax evasion, highlighting gravity of the offence. - Opposes bail based on seriousness of the offence, non-cooperation in investigations, and precedent of denied bail for co-accused. 4. Respondent's Precedents: - Respondent cites various judgments to support the denial of bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and non-cooperation in investigations. 5. Judicial Analysis: - Court acknowledges the petitioner's role in tax evasion and the seriousness of economic offences. - Draws parallels with a similar case where bail was denied and granted upon a substantial deposit. - Considers the gravity of the offence and the threat posed by economic offenders to the national economy. - Without delving into the case's merits, the court deems it unfit to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Conclusion: - The bail application is dismissed based on the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner's role in a significant tax evasion scheme.
|
