TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel Mr. Parth Sharma, Advocate. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. 1. This common order shall dispose of CRM-M-53422-2025 and CRM-M-62114-2025, as both the petitions arise out of the same complaint and involve common questions of fact and law. Since the issues involved in both matters are interconnected, they are being taken up together and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience and clarity, CRM-M-53422-2025 is being treated as the lead case. 2. CRM-M-53422-2025 has been filed by the petitioner - Jashanpal Singh, seeking the concession of regular bail in a complaint instituted under Section 132(1)(a & l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with the corresponding provisions of the Punjab Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The import of such services satisfy the condition mentioned under Section 2(11) of the IGST Act, and therefore, it amounts import of services, ultimately delivered, utilized and consumed within the territory of India. Further, it is alleged that as per Section 7(4) of the IGST Act, 2017, supply of such services imported into the territory of India, shall be treated to be supply of services in the course of interstate, trade or commerce. Accordingly, the import of such services is deemed to be interstate supply of services, squarely attracting IGST liability, and that being the position, proprietor/partners of M/s Madox Production and M/s Diamond Crest Productions and the cumulative value of services imported without IGST under Reverse Charg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2023) 2 Gentax 291 (Chhattisgarh); (ii) Basudev Mittal v. Union of India, (2023) Gentax 295 (S.C.); (iii) Sandeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2020 (42) G.S.T.L. 190 (Raj.); and (iv) Sandeep Goyal v. Union of India, 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 497 (S.C.). Thus, in view of above, learned Senior counsel for the respondent/complainant - UOI, opposes the prayer for bail to the petitioner(s). 8. At this point, arguments of the petitioners' counsel seems very precise and satisfactory. He submitted that as per the 'memo of arrest', it is a case of non-deposit of GST on import of services and thus, is violation of the governing Act and Rules. 9. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner(s) further argued that there is no pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment dated 26.05.2025, passed in CRM-M-5987-2025 (O&M) & connected case, titled as, "Narinder Kumar Joshi v. Directorate General, Goods & Service Tax Intelligence", and (iv) further this High Court judgment in "Sarthak Jain v. Senior Intelligence Officer", (CRM-M-27147-2025, D.O.D.: 15.07.2025) : 2025:PHHC:085931. 12. Heard. 13. Considering the submissions addressed by respective counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments cited by both the sides, as raised herein, in the present petition(s), I do not find it necessary to conduct a parallel trial for deciding the petition(s) filed u/s 483 of BNSS, 2023. Applicability of the provisions of the Act, are also still subject matter of the trial. All the offences....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent/complainant in the proceedings under the Act, whether there is any liability or not, and if at all, liability to pay GST is made out or not, or whether actually any fraud has been played by the accused (petitioners herein). 15. In Vineet Jain's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court took it seriously that once offense is triable by the Court of Magistrate and awardable sentence is also limited and the allegations are based upon the documentary evidences, it becomes a matter of right to question that despite the accused being inside jail for 07 months, why the bail could not be granted to the accused, until the allegations are proved Similarly, in Manish Kumar's case (supra), wherein, there was an allegation of creating of 27 fake....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Moreover, personal liberty of the petitioner(s) herein cannot be curtailed for indefinite period in view of Radhika Aggarwal's case (supra). 17. Judgments relied upon by learned Senior counsel for the respondent/complainant on the contention of the further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. [S. 193(9) of BNSS, 2023], is premature at this stage. There is no such prayer or even application before the concerned Court in regard to the submission of the supplementary complaint/report. In view of all the aforementioned circumstances, and more particularly, the offences in the case(s) in hand being triable by the Court of learned Magistrate, and already petitioner(s) herein are there inside jail for about six months, this Court deems ....