TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 denies bail application for CGST Act offences under Section 439 Cr.P.C.</h1> <h3>Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Versus Union of India through Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate, Udaipur.</h3> The Court denied the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under the CGST Act, 2017. Despite arguments by the petitioner's counsel ... Seeking grant of bail - claiming of input tax credit without any transportation of goods - triable offence or not - compoundable offence or not - HELD THAT:- The benefit of bail was denied in the identical matters by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In ANIL CHAUKDIWAL S/O SATYANARAYAN CHAUKDIWAL, BHAGWAN SAIN SON OF SHRI RADHEYSHYAM SAIN, DEEPAK CHAUKDIWAL S/O SATYANARAYAN CHAUKDIWAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2021 (9) TMI 1349 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order to the effect that, “Office is directed to register suo moto bail cancellation application against accused-Anand Singh”, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted to the accused-petitioner at this stage. This bail application stands dismissed. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under CGST Act, 2017.The judgment pertains to a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner, who is in judicial custody for offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (f), (h), (j), and (k) & 132(1)(l)(l) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued that since the offences are triable by a Magistrate, and the petitioner has been in custody since a specific date, bail should be granted. Reference was made to a previous case where bail was granted in a similar matter by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application, citing instances where bail was denied in similar cases by the Court. The prosecution presented judgments/orders where bail was refused in cases like 'Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Anr.' and others. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that in the cases mentioned by the prosecution, the investigation was pending at the time of bail rejection, unlike the present case where a chargesheet has been filed. Additionally, the counsel referred to a Supreme Court judgment regarding the installation of CCTV cameras in Police Stations, emphasizing the lack of CCTV footage in the current case.After considering the arguments and circumstances, the Court noted that bail had been denied in similar matters by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court. Citing specific cases where bail cancellation orders were issued against other accused individuals, the Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage. The Court clarified that this decision does not reflect an opinion on the merits of the case but is based on the precedent of bail denial in comparable situations by the Court. Consequently, the bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
TaxTMI 
