2022 (3) TMI 1392 - HC - GST

Anticipatory Bail Denied to Employee in Rs.869 Crore GST Evasion Case Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The HC dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a salaried employee of M/s Miraj Products Private Limited accused of ... Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - allegation of evasion of tax - economic offender - offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(a), (f),(h),(i),(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is admitted position that raid was conducted in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited and as per the story of the prosecution, there is evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crores. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not considered a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 stands dismissed. Issues:Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offence under Sections 132(1)(a), (f), (h), (i), (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner, a salaried person in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, filed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's counsel argued that he was wrongly implicated, with no recovery to be made from him, and his role was not defined in previous complaints against co-accused. The petitioner participated in the investigation, but later retracted his statement. The respondent mentioned ongoing investigation against the petitioner but had not reached a final conclusion. The petitioner cited a similar case where a co-accused was granted bail by the Apex Court. The petitioner's counsel relied on a Delhi High Court judgment in a similar matter. However, the respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel, opposed the bail application, labeling the petitioner an economic offender. Citing various judgments, the respondent argued that economic offenders should be treated differently and that anticipatory bail in economic offences is not maintainable.The court noted that a raid at M/s Miraj Products Private Limited revealed an alleged tax evasion of Rs.869 Crores. Referring to previous judgments, the court acknowledged the seriousness of economic offences and the need to address economic offenders separately due to their impact on the national economy. Without delving into the case's merits, the court concluded that given the seriousness of the alleged offences and the nature of economic offenders, it was not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.