TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistered with G.S.T. Department. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant's firm received goods from registered dealers after payment of G.S.T. The firm has filed returns with G.S.T. Department. The returns from July 2017 to March 2018 could not be filed due to negligence of G.S.T. consultant firm of the applicant which was closed with effect from December, 2022 and he applied for cancellation of G.S.T. registration on 2.2.2021 which was rejected by the Department. Thereafter he again applied on 31.1.2022 for cancellation of G.S.T. registration which was allowed on 8.4.2022 .During pendency of cancellation application search in dispute was conducted by the DGGI, Regional Unit, Agra on 15.3.2022. The applicant presented himself in response to summons dated 15.3.2022 and his statement was recorded from night of 15..3.2022 to evening 16.3.2022 and he was served with arrest memo on 17.3.2022 and was arrested without lodging any complaint. Applicant stated in his statement that he purchased goods on proper Invoice, E-bill, etc., from duly registered suppliers. The application was made before Special C.J.M.Agra for taking applicant in judicial custody for fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rap, ferrous waste and scrap waste and scrap of precious metals. The firm of the applicant has taken credit from 21 non existing firms whose G.S.T. registrations have been obtained by submitting false/ forged documents of amount of 87,645 lacs in G.S.T. as per section 29(3) of C.G.S.T. Act 2017. Cancellation of the registrations of such firms shall not be effect the liability of the applicant to pay tax and other dues. The investigation is going on and in case applicant is released on bail he will influence the investigation, tamper with evidence and influence the witnesses. The applicant could not explain why he has taken credit of Rs.8.76/-,crores from non existent firms in his statement. His bail application has rightly been rejected by the courts below. The offence committed by the applicant fallse under section 132(1) (c) of C.G.S.T Act, which is cognizable and non bailable offence since he has availed illegal I.T.C. worth of Rs. 8.76 Crore. He has finally submitted that applicant is not entitled to bail keeping in view of seriousness of economic offence committed by him. After hearing rivals submission this court finds that documentary evidences collected by the department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so collected, the trial will take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody of applicant can be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is five years. Section 132(1)(i) provides for punishment as that 'in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine; and section 132(2) provides that, where any person convicted of an offence under this section is again convicted of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Section 138 of the Act makes provision for compounding of offences under the Act, even after the institution of prosecution, on payment by the person accused of the offence, such compounding amount in such manner as may be prescribed. The compounding shall be allowed only after making payment of tax, interest and penalty involved in such offences, on payment of compounding amount as may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual." The applicant is in jail since 16.3.2022 and has no criminal history. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and recent judgement dated 11.7.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 5191 of 2021 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is all....