TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplaint filed against him for offences punishable under Section 132 (1) (b) & (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017), on account of evasion of CGST running into crores of Rupees. 2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner herein is the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), the Apex Investigative Agency under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, responsible for enforcing compliance with indirect tax laws including GST, Central Excise, and Service Tax. The Respondent/Sudhir Gulati is the Director of a Company, namely, M/s Anmol Tradex Pvt. Ltd. 3. The officers of DGGI developed an intelligence that M/s Anmol Tradex Pvt. Ltd. has been found to be engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lenge is that Bail has been granted to the Respondent without taking into consideration whether a prima facie case exists against the Respondent. 8. The involvement of the Respondent is evident from his Statement dated 21.09.2020 before DGGI, wherein he had stated that the control and day to day management *of M/s Anmol Tradex Pvt. Ltd. lay with the Respondent. The Respondent has never retracted this incriminating statement made before Investigating Officers. 9. Reliance has been placed on the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Kalvert Foods India Ltd., (2011) 12 SCC 243, wherein it was held that the Statements made to Central Excise Officers by the Managing Directors of the Company and other persons containing all the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o likelihood of the Respondent absconding or tampering with the evidence, as has also been observed by the learned CMM in the impugned Order. 17. Furthermore, the Respondent is a 64 year old citizen and underwent a bypass surgery in 2001, and has been suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. During the time of investigation in 2020, he underwent certain Tests and the Respondent's HbIAc was very high and he was prone to getting infected by Covid-19. Moreover, considering that the Respondent's wife was diagnosed with cancer, it would have been callous to incarcerate the Respondent in such circumstances, especially since both he and his wife, are elderly. 18. Reliance has been placed on the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t rejected a Bail Application, while observing that each case has to be considered on the touchstone of its own generic facts and individual merits. In said case, the alleged GST fraud committed by the accused had humongous ramification on the Revenue collection by the State. In that backdrop, the possibility of the accused tampering the evidence and/or influencing/intimidating the witnesses could not be ruled out. 24. Submissions heard and record perused. 25. The case against the Respondent/Sudhir Gulati stems from an intelligence received by the Petitioner/DGGI, revealing that M/s Anmol Tradex Pvt. Ltd., a company under the control of the Respondent, was involved in the fraudulent availing of ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 29 cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ground of violation of the conditions imposed while granting Bail. 28. This distinction is succinctly brought forth in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia and Anr, (2020) 2 SCC 118, wherein the Apex Court observed that the considerations that guide the power of an Appellate Court in assessing the correctness of an order granting Bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of Bail. The correctness of an order granting Bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting Bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. 29. Reference may also be made to the case of Deepak Yadav ....