TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the respondent-Arun Jindal vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025, whereby the respondent was enlarged on bail for the offences under Sections 132(1)(a) (f) (h) and (1) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act'). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order suffers from patent illegality and perversity as in para 22 of the impugned order, the trial court has observed that under Section 132(1)(ii) read with Section 132(4) of the CGST Act, the offences are compoundable and bailable and if the respondent wish to deposit the 50% of the amount quantified as Rs. 9,39,79,589/- then the offence would come within the purview of Section 138 of the CGST Act, which is com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....calate, thus committed the offence under Section 132(1)(a)(f) (h) and (1) of the CGST Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, wherein, at para 12, the Court held that, before granting bail, numerous factors are to be taken into consideration, including the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the accused's involvement. It is also contended that in the matter of YS Jagmohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, it was held that economic offences constitute a class apart and require a different approach in matters of bail and include deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public funds. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the charge must be taken into account, but the severity of the punishment imposed by the statute is also a factor. 11. It is also contended that the maximum punishment provided under Section 132 of the CGST Act is of 5 years and the respondent has remained in custody from 19.02.2025 up to 11.03.2025. It is also contended that the amount of GST has yet not finally been determined. It is also argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of C. Pradeep Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise & Anr, (2021) 19 SCC 547, protected the petitioner against whom liability of Rs. 19 Crores was assessed. Similarly, in Gulam Fareed Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 4962/2025), dated 20.11.2025, the Hon'ble Apex released the appellant on b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) acquires possession of, or in any way concerns himself in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, supplying, or purchasing or in any other manner deals with, any goods which he knows or has reasons to believe are liable to confiscation under this Act or the rules made thereunder; (i) receives or is in any way concerned with the supply of, or in any other manner deals with any supply of services which he knows or has reasons to believe are in contravention of any provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (j) [**]; (k) [**]; or (l) attempts to commit, or abets the commission of any of the offences mentioned in 7[clauses (a) to (f) and clauses (h) and (i)] of this section, shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffence under this Act may, either before or after the institution of prosecution, be compounded by the Commissioner on payment, by the person accused of the offence, to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case be, of such compounding amount in such manner as may be prescribed: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to- [(a) a person who has been allowed to compound once in respect of any of the offences specified in clauses (a) to (f), (h), (i) and (l) of sub-section (1) of section 132;] (b) [**]; [(c) a person who has been accused of committing an offence under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 132;] (d) a person who has been convicted for an offence....