9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused is not required for any further custodial interrogation, which is otherwise also not possible as 15 days since arrest of accused have already passed, as well as no report of any previous involvement, accused is admitted in bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-, with one surety of equal amount, subject to the terms imposed. Application allowed. - DW/GST/AE/PE/GRP 6/NB/765/2021 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2021 - (CHANDER JIT SINGH) ACMM-II/PHC/ND (PROCEEDINGS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Present: Sh. Satish Aggarwala, Ld. SPP for department of GST (through VC)/ Sh. Gagan for Department of GST. Sh. Ramesh Gupta, ld. Senior Advocate along with Sh. Kapil Dua, Sh. Bharat Sharma and Sh.Honey Chopra, ld. Counsel for applicant/accused (through VC). 1. It is submitted on behalf of applicant/accused that a search was conducted at the office of applicant on 15.03.2021. That it concluded at 05:00 p.m. and notice was given that day itself to applicant to join proceedings at 05:50 p.m. That in the garb of recording voluntary statement, applicant was forcibly kept at the office of department till next day. That arrest of accused was made in an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Gujarat, 2019-TIOL-1746-HC-AHMGST 5. Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Ors. vs. The Union of India, 2016-TIOL-863-HCMUM-ST 6. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Superintendent of GST 7. Central Excise and Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 31224 8. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 9. Bindal Smelting Pvt Ltd vs. Additional Director General, DGGI, 2020 (34) GSTL 592 10. P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India, 2019 (25) GSTL 185 11. CCE v. Duncan Agro Industries, (2000) 7 SCC 53 12. J.K. Cigarettes Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (242) E.L.T. 189 (Del.) 13. Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, (1993) 2 SCC 279 14. SLP (CRl) No. 6834/2019 titled as C. Pradeep vs The Commissioner of The GST And Central Excise Selam Anr. It is submitted that accused is no more required for investigation and otherwise also the evidence is documentary in nature. It is also argued that reason of his brother Vikas Bansal not joining the investigation, cannot be a ground to keep applicant/accused behind bar. Submission is made that application be allowed and accused be ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out and figures so reached do indicate that determination had been made. It is also argued that the judgment of Make My Trip case (supra) referred and relied by ld. Counsel for applicant is not applicable for the reason that it was in respect of the then applicable Service Tax law, secondly, determination has already been made and also for the reason that the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana wherein it is held that the said judgment of Make My Trip is pari materia applicable to CGST Act, 2000 is pending adjudication before Hon ble Supreme Court of India . Reliance has been placed on the judgments : 1. K.I. Pavunny v. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise 1997 (90) ELT 241 (S.C.) 2. Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu Crl. Appeal No.152/2013 3. Sapna Jain Ors. SLP (Cri) 4322-4324/2019 4. Vimal Yashwant Giri Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat R/Special Civil Application No.13679/2019 5. Rajasthan High Court in Rajesh Goel Vs. Union of India-S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 726/2011-decided on 27.01.2011 6. Ashish Jain Versus Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 3804 of 2019 decided on 31.07.2019 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail 3a. In the present case also in the reply itself it has been mentioned that accused has admitted of causing loss to the tune of ₹ 7-8 crores to the exchequer. Accused is in custody since 25.03.2021. To decide whether or not admit accused on bail or not abovesaid parameters as held by Hon ble Supreme Court of India have to be measured/have to be assessed. The fact that accused was straightaway sent to judicial custody is prima facie indicative of the fact that accused is not required for custodial interrogation. Further, no previous involvement of accused in any similar offence has been brought on record which implies that it is his first offence and he is not a habitual offender. It is also to be seen that accused is not at a flight risk and no submissions have been made to this effect. It has been argued on behalf of respondent department that investigation is still pending and the argument of applicant/accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
