Bail under GST prosecution granted where tax liability had not fully crystallised and custody had already been substantial.

Bail was granted in a second application under the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in proceedings alleging offences under Section 132. The Court noted that tax on imported inward supplies would arise only after the export period expired, the remaining outward supply reflected tax exposure below the stated threshold, a deposit was already with the authorities, and no notice for outstanding tax had been issued. It also relied on the petitioner's more than five months in custody and the fire at the factory. On these facts and the cited precedents, the Court exercised bail jurisdiction in favour of the accused on stipulated terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second bail application under the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 should be allowed and bail granted to the accused petitioner.

Analysis: The allegation arose from offences under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the inward supply included imported goods for which a bond had been executed and tax on that component would arise only after expiry of the export period. It also noted that the remaining outward supply reflected a tax exposure below the stated threshold, that a deposit was already lying with the authorities, that a fire had occurred at the factory, that the petitioner had remained in custody for more than five months, and that no notice for tax outstanding had been issued. In these circumstances, and considering the cited precedents, the Court found it appropriate to exercise bail jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The second bail application was allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner on stipulated terms.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail may be granted where the alleged tax liability has not yet fully crystallised, the accused has undergone substantial custody, and the surrounding circumstances do not justify further detention.

---