Bail in GST evasion cases may be refused where clandestine removal, grave revenue loss, and statutory non-bailable offences are shown.

Allegations of clandestine removal of goods without invoice and large-scale duty evasion under the CGST Act were treated as grave economic offences. Offences under section 132(1)(a) to (d) were noted as cognizable and non-bailable where the statutory conditions were met, and arrest could be made on reasons to believe under section 69(1). The proprietor could not avoid responsibility by attributing business conduct to a manager. On the gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, and public revenue loss, bail was refused and the application rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the applicant in a prosecution under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for alleged large-scale evasion of duty and commission of offences under section 132.

Analysis: The allegation was of clandestine removal of goods without invoice and evasion of duty of a very large magnitude. The statutory scheme treated offences under section 132(1)(a) to (d) as cognizable and non-bailable where the prescribed conditions were met, and the arrest power under section 69(1) was invoked on the basis of reasons to believe. The Court also noted that the applicant, being the proprietor, could not avoid responsibility by attributing conduct of business to a manager. In assessing bail, the Court relied on the gravity of the accusation, the severity of punishment, the economic nature of the offence, and the loss to the public revenue. Applying these considerations, the Court found that the case did not justify release on bail.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the application was rejected.

---