Bail Denied to GST Evasion Accused Under s.132 CGST Act Citing Large-Scale Fraud and BSA 2023 Evidence

HC, considering offences under s.132 CGST Act involving large-scale GST evasion, rejected bail to Petitioner A and Petitioner B. The Department alleged Petitioner A operated two steel firms, systematically moving goods without documents or e-way bills, destroying evidence, and evading tax of about Rs. 13.61 crore, supported by electronic evidence admissible under BSA, 2023. Petitioner B was allegedly running a trading concern issuing fake invoices and supplying goods without bills. Noting the organized nature, seriousness of economic offence, and strong supporting material, HC held both not entitled to bail.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the petitioners accused of offences under Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1.2 What parameters govern the grant or refusal of bail in economic offences involving alleged large-scale evasion of Goods and Services Tax.

1.3 Whether the nature and sufficiency of the material collected by the Department, including electronic evidence, justify denial of bail to the petitioners.

1.4 Whether reliance on bail orders granting or refusing bail in other, allegedly similar cases can by itself confer a right of parity to the petitioners for grant of bail.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to bail under Section 483 BNSS for offences under Section 132 CGST Act

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court noted that Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes a list of criminal offences under the Act, provides for arrest and prosecution, and classifies such offences as bailable or non-bailable based on the value of alleged tax evasion.

2.2 The Court referred to detailed instructions issued by CBIC vide Instruction No. 2/2022-23 dated 07.08.2022 regarding bail in relation to offences under the CGST Act, framed in light of the decision in Siddharth v. State of U.P. and Another.

2.3 The Court also referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court concerning bail in economic offences, inter alia in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, and culled out relevant considerations for grant of bail.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Court treated the nature of CGST offences as economic offences, requiring a careful application of bail principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

2.5 Based on the cited precedents, the Court identified the following key factors to be considered in such matters: (i) nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) nature of evidence collected; (iii) character and criminal antecedents of the petitioner; (iv) severity of punishment and applicable legal provisions; (v) risk of absconding or non-appearance at trial; (vi) likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence; and (vii) larger societal interest and the impact of grant of bail on society.

2.6 The Court held that each bail application must be decided on its own facts and merits, even where numerous judicial precedents and prior bail orders are cited by both sides.

Conclusions

2.7 Applying the above parameters to the facts and material in the present matters, the Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS.

Issue 2: Parameters for bail in economic offences and their application to alleged GST evasion

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The Court regarded the alleged conduct as part of a "systematic network" to evade tax, characterizing the cases as involving "white collar crime" and serious economic offences.

2.9 The Court emphasized that tax collection is the "lifeline of every country," and tax evasion amounts to denial of developmental opportunity to citizens who require governmental support. This broader public interest and societal impact weighed against grant of bail.

2.10 On gravity and quantum, the Court recorded that in the case of one petitioner, alleged evasion was to the tune of Rs. 13,61,76,573/-, and in respect of the other petitioner, the Department assessed individual involvement in loss of Rs. 8,33,20,465/- within an overall network where the total estimated loss was Rs. 58.46 crores. The Court treated these amounts as "huge" and indicative of significant gravity.

2.11 While the petitioners stressed that investigation was complete, complaints had been filed, and that they had already spent time in custody, the Court held that completion of investigation and custody period alone did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence and the material collected in support of the accusations.

Conclusions

2.12 Considering the nature and gravity of the accusations, the scale of alleged tax evasion, the characterization of the offence as a serious economic crime, and the societal interest in deterrence and protection of public revenue, the Court found these factors militated against grant of bail.

Issue 3: Sufficiency and nature of material, including electronic evidence, as basis to deny bail

Interpretation and reasoning as to petitioner Gulam Fareed

2.13 The Court noted the Department's case that M/s Aravali Steels and M/s Apollo Steels were both operated by the petitioner, and that he systematically transferred goods without legal documents, including e-way bills, followed by destruction of evidence after successful transfer.

2.14 The Court recorded that material collected by the Department allegedly showed tax evasion of Rs. 13,61,76,573/- by this petitioner. The Court accepted that the Department had collected electronic evidence, which is admissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, subject to statutory qualifications.

2.15 The Court, on evaluation of this material, did not accept the petitioner's contention that he was falsely implicated merely on the basis of association with the firms or on WhatsApp chats; rather, it treated the collected documentary and electronic material as sufficient, at the bail stage, to substantiate the accusation of systematic evasion.

Interpretation and reasoning as to petitioner Yash Chandani

2.16 The Court noted the allegation that this petitioner, as associated with and operating M/s Yash Trading Company, was involved in purchase and supply of iron scrap goods without bills and tax receipts.

2.17 The Court recorded that the Department had collected material to show that this petitioner was the person who evaded tax, including a detailed list of electronic and other documents, and that fake invoices and bills were allegedly prepared by him. Material linked to M/s Mahaveer Trading Company and other persons was also referred to.

2.18 The Court took note that within a total estimated loss of Rs. 58.46 crores in the larger network, the specific involvement of this petitioner was assessed at Rs. 8,33,20,465/-, and treated the supporting material as adequate, at the bail stage, to prima facie support the Department's allegations.

Conclusions

2.19 On appraisal of the material on record, including electronic evidence, the Court found a prima facie case of systematic tax evasion against both petitioners and held that the strength and nature of the evidence weighed against their release on bail.

Issue 4: Effect of prior bail orders and claim of parity

Interpretation and reasoning

2.20 Both sides cited numerous decisions granting and refusing bail in economic offences and CGST matters, including orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court noted these authorities and stated that it had considered them without elaborating their individual ratios for reasons of brevity.

2.21 The Court accepted the proposition, emphasized by the Department, that a petitioner cannot claim bail solely on the ground of parity with orders in other matters; rather, each accused must establish, on their own facts and material, entitlement to bail.

2.22 The Court reiterated that "each case itself has its own merit," and that prior grant or refusal of bail in allegedly similar CGST or economic offence cases does not automatically control the outcome in another case.

Conclusions

2.23 The Court declined to treat earlier bail orders cited by the petitioners, including orders of the Supreme Court and coordinate benches, as conferring any automatic right to bail in the present matters, and instead decided the applications on the specific facts, quantum of alleged evasion, and evidence against these petitioners.

Overall conclusion

2.24 In view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offences, the substantial amounts of tax allegedly evaded, the prima facie sufficiency of documentary and electronic evidence showing systematic tax evasion by the petitioners, and the broader public interest in safeguarding tax revenue, the Court held that both petitioners were not entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS and dismissed their bail applications.

---