TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding Company were trading firms namely M/s Ganga Trading Company whereas M/s Ganga Trading Company declaring B2C sale issued invoices to other trading firms namely M/s Kamtanathji Traders. It is emerged from discrete verification that these firms had no retail infrastructure of point of sale to support B2C sales of the volume stated in para-2.2 of the complaint preferred before the court concerned. The aforesaid firms appear to have material for B2C sales through the firms above mentioned to prevent identification of real B2B recipients. 4.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that as per prosecution case M/s Kamadgiri Trading Company made purchases of Rs. 545.99 crores of Areca Nuts from one supplier M/s Maa Kamakhya Traders. On scrutiny of the creditor's ledger account it is noticed that firm has outstanding balance of Rs. 3,95,54,95,341/- pending for payment to the main supplier as on 30.6.2025. As per the GST law, ITC can only be availed if the buyer have been paid the value of the supply along with the tax payable to the supplier within a period of 180 days from the date of issuance of invoices by supplier. The goods reaching godowns are physically clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that till date trial has not commenced. 8.It is to be seen that in the present case the main allegation against the applicant is that actual supply of goods have been made from B2B invoices that is to the pan masala manufacturers whereas the invoices have been issued in the name of retail customers. The amount of tax evasion has not been disclosed in the application/complaint. It is further to be noted that the tax assessment in respect of the default of the applicant is yet to be assessed by the GST department. It is not in dispute between the parties that the tax evasion is compoundable in nature. The investigation has been completed and the complaint has been preferred before the court concerned. No other criminal history of the applicant has been pointed out. The prosecution evidence primarliy rests upon the documentary evidence, tally data, and the statement of the accused person. 9. It is not in dispute that till date proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of CGST Act has not been initiated. The said proceedings are in the nature of assessment proceedings in respect of alleged violation where show cause notice can be issued to tax payer. Although criminal prosecution is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 13. It is trite law that pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Appeal No 2269 of 2025 (Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India) (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No 4349 of 2025) decided on 28.4.2025 while grating bail to accused Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has observed as under:- "The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances" 17.In Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 621, Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognise the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception"." 20.Learned counsel for opposite parties has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for bail. 21.Learned counsel for opposite parties has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned counsel for opposite party that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 22.It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure ....