9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 764X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich may extend to five years and with fine. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of LALIT GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ANR [ 2022 (8) TMI 1319 - SC ORDER] did not interfere with the impugned order dt.07.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in [ 2021 (9) TMI 1347 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] S.B. CRLMB No.13042/2021, whereby the bail application of petitioner therein was dismissed in which he was arrested 22.02.2021. Submission made by learned counsel for the respondent was that the petitioner and other persons had taken part in various firms and also claimed Input Tax Credit of Rs.18.91 Crores without any transportation of goods. However, Hon ble Apex Court decided the aforesaid Case on 26.08.2022 and since then the accused had remai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cco is being done under the aegis of non-existent firms and shipped from the State of Gujarat to Delhi and Noida by some non-existent firms and the purported transportation is allegedly being done by one M/s. Singhal Transport Company, whereas the petitioner is engaged in trading of raw tobacco under the name style of M/s Galaxy Tobacco, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner that perusal of judicial remand application makes it apparent that the allegations levelled therein, are prima-facie not against the petitioner. As per Section 132 of the Act of 2017, the maximum punishment provided for the offence is five years of imprisonment and triable by First Class Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el appearing for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- (i) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC Online SC 825, (ii) Ramchandra Vishnoi Etc. Vs. Union of India, CRLA No.1742-1743/2022, SC dt. 10.10.2022, (iii) Dipanshu Gupta Vs. Union of India, CRLMB No.3399/2022 RHC dt.13.04.2022, (iv) Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union-of-India, 2021 (10) TMI 1309, (v) Saurabh Kumar Jain Vs. Union-of-India, 2021 (8) TMI 117, (vi) Rajesh Arora Vs. State, CRLM 4th Bail No.3987/2020, RHC dt.26.05.2020 (vii) Lakshya Agarwal Vs. DGGI, CRLMB No.20392/2021 RHC dt.08.03.2022, (viii) Nitin Verma Vs. Union-of-India and another, CRLMB No.54497/2021 High Court of Allahabad dt.03.08.2022 and (ix) Pravin Jangir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of unmanufactured tobacco apparently has been used in clandestine manufacturing and supplying of Jarda by Tobacco manufacturing companies without payment of leviable duties and taxes. Following details of approximate duty/taxes, so evaded have been mentioned :- . Quantity of raw tobacco procured/supplied clandestinely: 90520 kgs. Number of Jarda pouches of MRP 1, which can be manufactured by using said quantity: 22,63,00,000 (90,52,00,00 Gms/0.4 Gms) as 0.4 Gms raw tabacco is used in one pouch of Jarda of Rs.1/- MRP) Taxable Value of Jarda which can be manufactured with said quantity of raw tabacco: Rs.6,90,21,500 (Approx. Rs.0.305 per pouch) Total tax/duty involved in said pouches: Rs.15,57,28,345/- (including Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed Input Tax Credit of Rs.18.91 Crores without any transportation of goods. However, Hon ble Apex Court decided the aforesaid Case on 26.08.2022 and since then the accused had remained in custody for a period of about one year and six months. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) in Para Nos.15 16, held as under :- 15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... object of the Special Act, and the attending circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken note of, along with the period of sentence. After all, an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the court to categorise all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. (Emphasis supplied). In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner pertains to an amount of Rs.15,57,28,345/- and custody period is about three months, therefore, looking to the above facts, circumstances, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court deems it not proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
