Court rejects anticipatory bail for GST evasion involving clandestine manufacturing under Section 132(1)(a) citing investigation interference

The Patiala House Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a GST evasion case involving clandestine manufacturing and sale under Section 132(1)(a) of the GST Act. The court distinguished this offense from documentary evidence-based GST violations, noting that Section 132(1)(a) cases rely primarily on ocular evidence from employees and persons involved in production and transportation. The court found that interim protection was hampering investigation as applicants and employees were not responding to departmental summons, creating possibility of witness influence. Given the several crores of alleged duty evasion and potential for investigation interference, the court deemed it unfit for anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in a case of GST evasion involving clandestine manufacturing and sale.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Statements Recorded Under Duress:
The counsel for the accused contended that the statements were recorded under duress, where the accused had no choice but to sign them. Reference was made to a previous decision to support the argument that anticipatory bail should be granted liberally in cases of GST evasion. However, the Department's counsel highlighted that there was no retraction on the statements already recorded, indicating the accused's involvement.

2. Non-Cooperation with Investigation:
The Department pointed out that the accused and related individuals were not cooperating with the investigation. The accused admitted that the Directors were dummy Directors, and they were actually running the business. Additionally, a network of small firms owned by the accused was involved in clandestine activities, making it difficult for the Agency to conduct a thorough investigation.

3. Evidence and Modus Operandi:
Evidence retrieved from a mobile phone indicated a complex system of codes for transactions and accounting to maintain a clandestine operation without a paper trail. Previous instances of evasion and penalty payment by the accused in 2018 were highlighted, showing a pattern of avoiding GST compliance.

4. Nature of Offense and Investigation Interference:
Distinction was made between offenses under different sections of the law, highlighting that the present case involved clandestine manufacturing and sale covered by a specific section. The non-cooperation of the accused and their associates raised concerns about potential interference with the investigation, given the significant amount of duty evasion involved.

5. Decision and Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail:
Considering the lack of cooperation, the potential for interference with the investigation, and the substantial amount of duty evasion, the Court concluded that this was not a suitable case for granting anticipatory bail. The applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the complexities of the case, including the nature of the offense, evidence, lack of cooperation with the investigation, and the potential for interference. The decision to dismiss the anticipatory bail applications underscores the gravity of the situation and the importance of conducting a thorough and unhindered investigation into the alleged GST evasion involving clandestine activities.

---