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>Petitioner Granted Bail in Corruption Case with GST Evasion Charges</h1> <h3>Ankit Mahajan Versus State of Punjab</h3> The Court granted the petitioner regular bail in a case involving charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and IPC sections related to GST ... Grant of regular bail - Tobacco - evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- Only serious allegation against the petitioner would be that there is an evasion of payment of GST on a truck seized, which was carrying goods manufactured by the petitioner, however, ownership of the same is being disputed. Be that as it may, keeping in view that the GST minus penalty has already been paid and the investigation is complete and challan stands presented, custody of the petitioner would no longer be required and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of personal/surety bond in the sum of ₹ 10 lakh each to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Issues: Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving charges under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC sections related to GST evasion and bribery.Analysis:1. Bail Application: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case involving FIR No.09 dated 21.08.2020 under Sections 7, 7A, 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Vigilance, SAS Nagar (Mohali).2. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner, through senior counsel, argued that he was wrongly implicated, and the allegations of GST evasion were unfounded. It was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 12 lakhs had already been deposited towards GST, and there was no direct involvement in bribery with the co-accused ETO.3. State's Response: The State, represented by counsel from Vigilance, contended that the petitioner had not paid a penalty of Rs. 20,49,000 and had collaborated with the owner of Sadhu Transport Co. to evade GST payment. The State highlighted a conspiracy involving multiple parties to evade GST payment amounting to crores.4. Legal Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the penalty demand was being independently challenged and should not affect the bail decision. It was also emphasized that the proceedings under the CGST Act were separate and the petitioner would face them independently.5. Judicial Decision: After hearing both parties, the Court noted the primary allegation of GST evasion related to a seized truck carrying goods manufactured by the petitioner. Despite ownership disputes, as GST minus penalty was paid, investigation completed, and challan presented, the Court deemed continued custody unnecessary. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail on execution of personal/surety bonds of Rs. 10 lakh each. Additional conditions included surrendering the passport and obtaining court permission before leaving India. Notably, the Court clarified that its decision did not imply any judgment on the case's merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
