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>Bail granted to accused in GST evasion case citing SC guidelines and completed investigation under relevant tax laws</h1> <h3>Jitendra Kumar Gupta Versus Union Of India, Through Special PP</h3> The HC allowed bail to the petitioner accused of evading GST payment through forged documents involving substantial tax theft. Citing SC guidelines ... Seeking grant of bail - evasion of payment of GST - petitioner created forged documents and as such committed theft of crores of rupees, which was payable as tax - HELD THAT:- Considering the recent directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to not to send in Jail normally in cases which are punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years and the fact that no purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner after completion of the investigation as there is no provision for pre-trial punishment. Hence, the instant bail application stands allowed. Bail application allowed. ISSUES: Whether bail can be granted under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in offences under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and corresponding State and Integrated GST Acts.Whether the nature of the offence and stage of investigation affect the grant of bail.Whether there is a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if bail is granted in such tax evasion cases.What conditions are appropriate to impose when granting bail in cases involving alleged tax evasion by forged documents. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is justified where the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed, especially when the offence is punishable with imprisonment extending up to 5 years and fine.The Court held that 'no purpose would be served by further detention of the petitioner after completion of the investigation as there is no provision for pre-trial punishment.'There is 'no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing' the evidence because it 'would essentially be documentary and electronic' with ocular evidence through official witnesses.Bail was granted subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and prohibition on leaving the country without court permission, with the warning that non-compliance may lead to cancellation of bail. RATIONALE: The Court relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, which emphasized the completion of investigation and the nature of evidence in bail considerations under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The legal framework includes Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, which prescribe punishment up to 5 years imprisonment and fine for tax evasion involving forged documents.The Court applied the principle that offences punishable with imprisonment of less than 7 years generally do not warrant custodial detention post-investigation, reflecting a doctrinal shift towards minimizing pre-trial incarceration.The decision aligns with recent Supreme Court directions discouraging jail for offences punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment unless exceptional circumstances exist.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
