2021 (5) TMI 928 - HC - GST

Petitioner granted bail in GST Act case despite opposition. Factors considered: nature of offence, age, health, deposit, trial delays.

Kewal Chand Jain S/o Jawahar Mal Jain Versus Union Of India

The court granted bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. Despite opposition from the ... Grant of Bail - offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(B) & (C) read with 132(1)(I) Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 - non-bailable and cognizable offence or not - HELD THAT:- The present bail application deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence under the Act is 5 years; secondly, there is no apprehension, if any, shown by the respondent-department about the accused-petitioner of running away, or tempering or influencing the witnesses in any manner; thirdly, challan has already been presented in the court and due to ongoing Covid-19 problem, the trial is not proceeding; fourthly to show his bona fides the petitioner has already deposited Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Thousand with the department and lastly the petitioner is a 68 years old person and he is not required for any custodial interrogation/investigation. Petitioner be admitted to regular bail subject to satisfaction of the trial Court - Petition allowed. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with offence under Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(B) & (C) read with 132(1)(I) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated, highlighting non-compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act. It was argued that the petitioner, a 68-year-old individual, had deposited a significant amount under protest due to a demand of &8377; 9.32 Crores. The counsel emphasized that the offence, being non-bailable and cognizable, warranted bail, especially considering the petitioner's age, the ongoing Covid-19 situation delaying the trial, and the absence of any risk of absconding or witness tampering by the petitioner.The respondent-department opposed the bail application, acknowledging the petitioner's deposit of Rupees One Crore Fifty Four Thousand. However, the department still contested the bail plea.Upon review of the material on record and the circumstances of the case, the court found merit in granting bail to the petitioner. The court noted several factors supporting bail: the maximum sentence for the alleged offence being 5 years, lack of concerns regarding the petitioner fleeing or interfering with witnesses, the presentation of the challan in court, the petitioner's age and health, the substantial deposit made, and the trial delay due to the pandemic. Consequently, the court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner's release subject to the trial court's satisfaction. The office was instructed to communicate the order to the trial court for necessary action.