Regular bail in alleged GST evasion case refused as evidentiary issues and parity grounds failed.

Regular bail was declined in a case alleging large-scale GST evasion through cash procurement of agricultural-grade urea, manufacture and clearance of taxable goods without payment of tax, and substantial loss to the State exchequer. The Court held that the extent of alleged evasion and the value of the goods were matters for evidence and could not be examined as a mini trial at the bail stage. It also rejected parity, noting that the co-accused had obtained bail on a materially different and lesser factual basis. The application was rejected in view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted to an alleged to have been involved in large-scale GST evasion and tax-free clearance of goods.

Analysis: The allegations concerned procurement of agricultural grade urea in cash, manufacture and clearance of taxable goods without payment of GST, and evasion of a very substantial amount of tax. The Court held that the extent of evasion and the value of the urea procured were matters of evidence and could not be examined as a mini trial at the bail stage. The Court further considered the gravity of the allegations, the alleged loss to the State Exchequer, and rejected parity because the co-accused had been granted bail on a different factual footing involving a lesser amount.

Conclusion: Regular bail was declined. The application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to enlarge the applicant on bail in view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and the absence of a parity ground.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence involving substantial alleged GST evasion, bail may be refused where the court finds that the accusations require evidentiary scrutiny and that parity does not arise from materially different facts.

---