TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he bail order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, whereby following conditions have been imposed upon the applicant while granting bail to him: 4. The brief facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant is the sole proprietor of firm registered in the name and style of M/s LAN Engineering and Technologies. The firm is involved in the business of manufacturing and supply of meter boxes and distribution boxes to Government utilities. The applicant is also taking care of another firm namely, M/s Neelu Packing Industries, of which Mr. Balbir Singh, who is the father of the applicant, is the sole proprietor. On 06.08.2020, a joint team of officers of Department of C.G.S.T. Commissionerate, NOIDA and C.G.S.T. Commissionerate, Meerut, visited the premises of M/s LAN Engineering and Technologies and M/s Neelu Packing Industries. Thereafter, on 11.11.2020 summons under section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (herein-after referred to as "C.G.S.T Act") was served upon the applicant requiring his presence on 11.11.2020 at 14:00 ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account belonging to the applicant has been made, therefore, the applicant cannot be directed and forced to deposit the remaining disputed amount of Rs. 4,51,00,000/- (rupees four crore fifty one lac only). It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that under the C.G.S.T. Act, there is no statutory provision for compelling the applicant to deposit the entire amount without completing the investigation/enquiry or without launching prosecution by filing complaint or without initiating any recovery proceedings under section 73 or 74 of C.G.S.T. Act. Much emphasis has been given that under Chapter XV, there is a complete procedure for demand and recovery, therefore, without following the same, the applicant cannot be compelled to deposit the entire disputed amount. It is submitted that any act done by the Department otherwise in due course of law as provided under C.G.S.T. Act, can be termed as illegal action. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that vide two letters dated 23.11.2020 addressed to Senior Intelligence Office, Group D, DGGI, Ghaziabad, Regional Unit, undertakings were given by the applicant with regard to disputed amount aga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of this case. Object of imposing conditions is to secure the attendance of the accused and to protect the interest of revenue, instead ruins the business of accused, therefore he can be directed to give security other than cash or bank guarantee as per his undertaking, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 22.02.2021. 8. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court: 1. Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2000 (2) SCC 66, 2. Amarjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, JT 2002 (1) SC 291, 3. Sheikh Ayub vs State of M.P., 2004 (13) SCC 457 4. Ramathal & others vs Inspector of Police & Another, 2009 Cr.L.J. 2271, 5. Munish Bhasin & Others vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Another, 2009 (4) SCC 45, 6. Sumit Mehta vs State (N.C.T. of Delhi), 2013 (15) SCC 570, 7. Dilip Singh vs State of M.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2021 decided on 19.01.2021. 9. In the case of Sandeep Jain (supra) the Apex Court held that: "We are unable to appreciate even the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge granting bail is confirmed. 12. In Ramathal & Ors (supra), the Apex Court has again considered the issue of imposing onerous conditions while granting Anticipatory bail to accused. Relevant observations made by the Apex Court in the said case are as follows: "7. On perusal of the submissions made and material on record, the High Court passed an order granting anticipatory bail as prayed for on condition that in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be enlarged on bail on their depositing Rs. 32,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No. 56 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore and also on their executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to his satisfaction. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants approached this Court on the ground that the conditions imposed by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail are not only unreasonable and onerous but the same also amounts to putting a fetter on the right of appellants being admitted to bail, in terms of the order passed. 15. It appears that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the High Court passed the impugned order with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rents were entitled to bail under Section 438 of the Code. When the High Court had found that a case for grant of bail under Section 438 was made out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for past maintenance and a sum of Rs. 12,500 per month as future maintenance to his wife and child. In a proceeding under Section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the wife and child." 14. In the case of Sumit Mehta (supra), the only point for consideration was whether the condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in fixed deposit for anticipatory bail is sustainable in law and whether such condition is outside the purview of Section 438 of the Code? The observations made by the Apex Court while deciding the aforesaid issue are as under: 11. While exercising power under Section 438 of the Code, the court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. For the same, while granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndition to be imposed. 15. Quite recent the Apex Court on January 19, 2020 has again considered the issue of imposing onerous conditions while granting Anticipatory bail to accused in case of Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2021. Facts , observations and findings of the Apex Court are as follow : "2. This appeal is against an order dated 11 September 2019 passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, subject to the condition of deposit of Rs. 41 lakhs in court and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. It was directed that the order would be governed by condition Nos 1 to 3 of sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court was directed to deposit the amount so deposited by the appellant with any nationalized bank. 3. Ex facie, the disputes in the instant case are civil in nature. It is the contention of the complainant that despite having paid Rs. 41 lakhs to the appellant pursuant to an agreement for purchase of agricultural land, the appellant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able to be interfered with, but they do not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. In paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit of opposite party No. 2, it is stated that proceedings for demand and recovery of disputed ITC availed by M/s NPI and M/s LE & T under section 73 and 74 of the C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 is the action after completion of the investigation, which is under progress. It is also submitted that applicant voluntarily deposited tax amount of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (rupees five crore only) under section 74(5) of the C.G.S.T. Act. 17. Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has placed reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Suresh Kumar P.P. & another vs The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & others (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 13128 of 2020 decided on 07.01.2021. 2. Vikalp Jain vs Union of India and others, (Matter under Article 227 No. 5789 of 2019) decided on 02.08.2019. 18. In the case of Suresh Kumar (supra), the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned notice, invalidation of search and seizure proceedings, refund or a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, (b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and (c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence." and may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary." 22. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that conditions for grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making a grant of bail illusory. The conditions while granting bail should be reasonable, so that it may not frustrate the very object of granting bail. Discretion exercised by the Court while imposing conditions should not be arbitrary, but it should be keeping in mind to strike balance between the accused and prosecution. In the present case, it is admitted facts to the counsel for the parties that as on dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove bail cancellation application. 25. Accordingly, the bail application under section 439 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ============= Document 1 “1. अà¤à¤¿à¤¯à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ अंकन बीस-बीस लाख रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ की दो जमानत व सामान धनराशि का निजी बंध पतà¥à¤° दाखिल करने पर जमानत पर रिहा किया जाये। दो जमानतियों में से à¤à¤• जमानती अà¤à¤¿à¤¯à¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ के परिवार का नजदीकी सदसà¥à¤¯ ....