TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1747
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of Section 132 of CGST Act 2017, (read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017). 3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that on 28.04.2026 CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, came to the office of the petitioner at Mandi Gobindgarh on the pretext of conducting a search in the premises of 'M/s Titan Steels'. Thereafter, they forced the petitioner to accompany them to Ludhiana, on the ground that they wanted to interrogate him about the sale and purchase of goods related to his business. As per petitioner on the same day he was taken into custody in an illegal manner, but his formal arrest was shown on 29.04.2026. According to petitioner, his arrest was in violation of settled principles of law as grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. It has been further alleged that the dates mentioned on the summons, issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and notice for appearance, under Section 35(3) of BNSS, (produced by the department before the learned Court at the time of seeking judicial remand), were wrong. The petitioner in view above mentioned grounds, and also on the ground of long incarceration, has claimed the benefit of bail. 4. The above mentioned petition has been opposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... valid tax invoices and delivery challans. It has further been submitted that the payments in respect of such transactions were made through proper banking channels, thereby establishing that the business was actually being carried on by the petitioner's firm, and that there was no wrongful claim of ITC without actual business transaction. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the officers of the respondent failed to consider valid explanations of the petitioner and illegally arrested him on 29.04.2026. 9. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that not only the arrest was without any legal basis, but also the manner in which petitioner was formally arrested was illegal, because he was actually detained on 28.04.2026, but his formal arrest was shown on 29.04.2026. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, at the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest were not served upon the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that otherwise also the petitioner has already faced incarceration for a period of approximately four months and he has no criminal antecedents. According to learned counsel for the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding counsel for the respondent has also contended that altogether false pleas have been taken by the petitioner in his petition. As per learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent this plea of the petitioner is false that he was detained on 29.04.2026. With regard to above, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has contended that on 28.04.2026 only search and inspection was conducted, as per procedure prescribed under Section 67(2) of CGST Act, and that the proceedings taken up on 28.04.2026, which led to recovery of incriminating record and material evidence, proves the involvement of petitioner in fraudulent availment and utilisation of 'Input Tax Credit'. 14. As per learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, merely, because the petitioner was taken away on 28.04.2026, does not mean that the petitioner was detained or arrested on 28.04.2026. With regard to above, it has been contended by learned Senior Standing counsel for the petitioner that on 28.04.2026, the petitioner was present before the Superintendent Anti Evasion CGST Commissionerate, Ludhiana, and his statement was recorded under Section 70 CGST Act. As per learned Senior Standing c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking note of the fact that there were five charge sheets against the respondent/accused regarding laundering bribe money. In the above mentioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India detailed the factors which should be kept in mind while granting bail:- "a) the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. b) it has to be kept in mind that for purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. c) it is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llected would, in fact, indicate some force in the petitioners' submission that the assessees are compelled to pay tax as a condition for not being arrested. Sub-section (5) to Section 74 of the GST Acts gives an option to the assessee and does not confer any right on the tax authorities to compel or extract tax by threatening arrest. This would be unacceptable and violative of the rule of law'. 23. In the case of 'Sanjay Chandra (supra)', the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that the benefit of bail cannot be denied merely in view of severity of the offence, and that the Court ought to be conscious of the right to speedy trial bestowed on the account by virtue of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 24. This Court in the case of 'Gurcharan Singh and Others (supra)', has observed that 'two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. 25. With regard to right of bail to an accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pined as follows: "In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner. Hence, it is dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case". 32. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2022) 10 SCC 51 are also relevant in this case. In the abovementioned case, it has been observed that "the rate of conviction in criminal cases in India is abysmally low. It appears to us that this factor weighs on the mind of the Court while deciding the bail applications in a negative sense. Courts tend to think that the possibility of a conviction being nearer to rarity, bail applications will have to be decided strictly, contrary to legal principles. We cannot mix up consideration of a bail application, which is not punitive in nature with that of a possible adjudication by way of trial. On the contrary, an ultimate acquittal with continued custody would be a case of grave injustice". 33. Recently, in the case of 'Tapas Kumar Palit Vs. State of Chhattisgarh', 2025 SCC Online SC 322, the Hon'ble Su....