TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants bail to applicant for GST Act offences, considering nature of charges and lack of criminal history.</h1> The Court granted bail to the applicant, who was in custody for offences under Section 132 and 69 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. ... Seeking grant of bail - triable and compoundable offences or not - huge tax evasion - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the offence is triable by Magistrate and there is no allegation of any criminal antecedent against the applicant and the offence is compoundable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted. It is ordered that the accused – applicant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of ₹ 50, 000/- with two sureties of ₹ 25, 000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/link court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as & when called upon to do so - The bail application is allowed. The bail application is allowed. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 132 and 69 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:1. Allegations and Contention: The bail application was filed on behalf of the applicant who was in custody for offences under Section 132 and 69 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant claimed false implication, non-compliance with Section 41A of Cr.P.C., and being implicated based on co-accused statements.2. Legal Submissions: The applicant's counsel argued that the offence is triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, and there is no valid reason for the applicant to remain in custody. Reference was made to a previous order in Dhanraj Singhal vs. State of Rajasthan for supporting the bail application.3. Prosecution's Opposition: The Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application citing significant tax evasion and the potential negative impact of granting bail, suggesting it would send the wrong message.4. Judicial Decision: The Court considered the arguments from both sides, noting the triable nature of the offence, absence of criminal antecedents against the applicant, and the compoundable nature of the offence. Without delving into the case's merits, the Court decided to grant bail to the applicant.5. Bail Conditions: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applicant was directed to appear before the court on all hearing dates and as required.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects considered by the court in deciding to grant bail to the applicant in a case involving offences under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
