2024 (9) TMI 1534 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of regular bail - formation of thirteen bogus firms and evasion of payment of tax - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(1)(1) of the GST Act - HELD THAT - The nature of the allegation levelled against the applicant, further considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet/complaint has been filed before the jurisdictional Court against the applicant, also considering the fact that the maximum punishment provided under the CGST Act is upto 05 years and the same is also compoundable one, also considering the order of the Apex Court in SANDEEP GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2020 (5) TMI 240 - SC ORDER and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2024, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, it is required to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of Applicant Hemant Kasera is allowed. If the applicant, Hemant Kasera, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on bail involved in Crime No. 01/F.I.C./G.S.T./2024-25 registered at Police Station Central GST Department, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(1)(1) of the GST Act. Order shall be in force till disposal of the case in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an applicant arrested in connection with tax evasion under the GST Act.

Analysis:
1. Alleged Tax Evasion: The applicant was arrested for allegedly forming bogus firms and evading tax, leading to liability under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(1)(1) of the GST Act. The defense argued that mere tax evasion does not warrant liability under these sections and highlighted contradictory statements of witnesses regarding the involvement of the applicant in the offense.

2. Liability and Investigation: The defense contended that liability under Section 132 clause 1 of the Act is contingent on the amount of evasion, which is yet to be ascertained in this case. The applicant's health conditions were also brought up, emphasizing the need for specialized medical treatment due to various ailments. The defense asserted that since the charge sheet has been filed, further investigation is unnecessary, and there is no risk of witness tampering.

3. Arguments for Bail: The defense argued that the investigation is complete, the charge sheet has been filed, and the maximum punishment for the offense is five years of imprisonment. Citing a precedent from the Apex Court, the defense requested bail for the applicant, who has been in custody since April 3, 2024.

4. Opposing Views: The Union of India contended that further investigation is essential and could take up to four months to complete. They expressed concerns about the applicant tampering with evidence if granted bail, citing a relevant judgment from the Apex Court in support of their stance.

5. Judgment: After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the case diary, the Court considered the completed investigation, the nature of allegations, the maximum punishment, and the applicant's duration in custody. Without delving into the case's merits, the Court decided to grant regular bail to the applicant, subject to conditions including a personal bond and cooperation with any further investigation.

In conclusion, the Court granted bail to the applicant, Hemant Kasera, based on the completion of the investigation, the nature of allegations, and the duration of custody. The decision was made without commenting on the case's merits, with specific conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with any additional investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence.