TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 labourers were working. The finished goods were being supplied to Chhattisgarh and Odisha. The raid was conducted under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 on 01.01.2021. During the search, the premises was found covered in dust, with a strong pungent smell emanating from several wall machines operating in the right-side hall on the second floor. Fourteen gutka pouch making machines were functioning in the hall. 3. 75 labourers were found working and were engaged in different activities like pouring filled plastic bags into machine hoppers, collecting pouches and making multi-pouch packs, etc. On being asked about the 60-70 plastic bags kept near 14 machines, Supervisor Manoj alias Meghraj told the CGST Officers that these bags contained ready-to-pack feed for the pouch making machines, while the bigger bags on the outer side contained ready-to-dispatch material. The material being packed in the pouches was Gutka, branded as "Suhana Pasand" and "SHK," which was written on the pouches. 4. Manoj further disclosed that the left-side hall on the second floor, was used to store raw materials like Kattha, Supari, perfume tins, etc. On the third floor, there was a small room which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein he confirmed and acknowledged that he was aware of Gutka manufacturing be illegal. 9. In the subsequent Statement of Rohit recorded on 15.02.2021, he disclosed that he knew Vishal Goyal (Respondent) for two years and that Firm Om Sai Enterprises was actually opened by Vishal Goyal in his name and all transactions were done by him, who had placed Aakash, his trusted man, to handle the work. 10. During the investigations, it was found that Vishal Goyal, the Respondent, had created a network of multiple Firms, including M/s Lambodar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., to launder money earned from illegal Gutka manufacturing and sales. 11. This was supported by the voluntary statement of Rohit Srivastava recorded on 12.01.2021, who admitted that Vishal Goyal had transferred Rs.13 Lakhs from Lambodar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., to his Axis Bank Account to help him to purchase a Creta car, which was meant for use and benefit of Avdhesh Yadav, who was operating the illegal Gutka Factory for Vishal Goyal. 12. As no bills or invoices were found, the Department applied the Best Judgment Assessment Clause. The Department calculated approximate Custom Duty evasion by the unregistered Gutka/Pan Masa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ana Pasand pouches were recovered during the search of his residence on 15.01.2021. The premises owner, Shri Ranbir Singh also knew Avdhesh Kumar, who had set up the factory for and on behalf of the Respondent. 17. It is submitted that considering the huge revenue involved, the liability of the Respondent, cannot be reduced unless evaded duty is repaid to the Government, which he had assured in his Statement dated 15.02.2021. 18. It is further submitted that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent would tamper with evidence and create false evidence, if granted Bail. 19. The Respondent had absconded for over a month. His residence was searched on 15.01.2021 and his wife was summoned for 18.01.2021, but she claimed ignorance about his whereabouts. The Respondent appeared on 15.02.2021 on receiving Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 but such appearance cannot be deemed as voluntary. No retraction was reported by the Department or Special Public Prosecutor. When his Statement was recorded on 27.02.2021 in Jail, he did not inform the Officers or record any retraction of his earlier Statement, indicating an afterthought based on legal advice. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence was already in possession of the Department and nothing more was required to be recovered from the Respondent. Further, the Respondent was not the main accused and had clean antecedents. After considering all the relevant material, the Bail has been rightly granted to the Respondent. Reliance is placed on Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Anr., SLP (Crl.) 9207/2019. 26. It is asserted that the entire Case of the Petitioner/Department hinges on the Statements of the individuals recorded during the investigations. The veracity and authenticity of such Statements has to be tested during the trial. Aside from the Statements, no concrete or incriminating material exists against the Respondent. Insofar as, the Statement of the Respondent is considered, he had retracted his Statement through the Superintendent, Tihar Jail. Furthermore, it has no evidentiary value in view of the dicta laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Toofan Singh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. Appeal No. 152/2013, decided on 29.10.2020 wherein it was held that confessional Statement made before an Officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53, can be a basis to convict a person under NDPS A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent. Indirectly, the Petitioner is seeking cancellation of Bail, which is not maintainable in law. 32. Furthermore, it has been held in various Judgments by the Apex Court and the High Court that once a Bail has been granted, it should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of Bail during the trial. Bail cannot be cancelled merely on a request of the Complainant or investigating agency unless it is established that it has been misused and is no longer conducive in the interest of justice to allow the accused to remain on Bail. 33. Reliance is placed on X vs. State of Telangana & Anr., (2018) 16 SCC 511; Dolan Ram vs. State of Haryana, (1955) 1 SCC 349 and Directorate of Enforcement vs. Ratul Puri, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 97. 34. It is submitted that the instant case is not a one where the cancellation of Bail is justified. 35. On merits, all the assertions made in the Application, have been denied. It is further submitted that the Statement of the Respondent before the Investigating Agen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessary to cancel the same. The first situation requires the Court to analyse whether the order granting bail was illegal, perverse, unjustified or arbitrary. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail looks at whether supervening circumstances have occurred warranting cancellation. 16. In Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC, Apex Court held as follows: "12. ....It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of bail may be entertained by a superior Court on grounds such as perversity; illegality; inconsistency with law; relevant factors not been taken into consideration including gravity of the offence and impact of the crime; (v) However, the Court may not take the conduct of an accused subsequent to the grant bail into consideration while considering an appeal against the grant of such bail. Such grounds must be taken in an application for cancellation of bail; and (vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above." 43. The circumstances and consideration of both is therefore, distinct and must not be confused, when the Bail Order is sought to be recalled. The present case is of the former category wherein Bail granted vide Order dated 17.03.2021, is sought to be recalled on the ground of the discretion having been erroneously exercised in favour of the Respondent. 44. The learned CMM after due consideration of the relevant factors governing grant of Bail, has exercised the discretion judiciously. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 17.03.2021 show....