TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Rolling Mills and M/s Balaji Concast on 19-05-2023. In the said search certain incriminating materials had come on record. The accused petitioner is the partner in the said two firms. The statement of the accountant of the firms Rakesh Sarkar was recorded on 19-05-2023 wherein he is said to have admitted the clandestine supply of goods having gross value of Rs. 11.46 Crores by M/s. Balaji Concast during the period from April, 2022 to May, 2023 on which GST of Rs. 1.74 Crores was payable. With regard to the goods supplied by M/s Balaji Steel Rolling Mills, the said accountant had admitted the clandestine supply of goods having gross value of Rs. 23.66 Crores made during the period April, 2022 to May, 2023 for which GST to the tune of Rs. 3.62 Crores was payable. It is further projected that the statement of the applicant was recorded on 26-02-2024 with regard to the irregularities detected in connection with supplies made by the said two firms and the applicant is stated to have agreed with the statement made by the accountant of the said firms. The applicant is further stated to have admitted tax liability of 1.74 Crores in respect of M/s Balaji Concast and Rs. 3.64 Crores in res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of further investigation, on scrutiny of seized records, it was found that apart from clandestine supplies alleged to have been made in the year 2022-23, such clandestine supplies was also made by the said two firms in the year 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. The tax evaded for which the clandestine supplies was so made was also determined. In the said Authorisation of Arrest, it was further projected that as only a part statement of the applicant was recorded on 26-02-2024, therefore, to record voluntary statement of the applicant, summons were issued to him on three occasions. However, he did not comply with the said summons. In the said Authorisation of Arrest, it was further projected that on analysis of the materials coming on record, it was revealed that the applicant had indulged in clandestine supplies of goods resulting in evasion of GST to the extent of Rs. 15.25 Crores. It was further projected that clandestine supply of goods without issuance of invoice is an offence under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 and punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act and it is cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. In view of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in this connection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Satender Kr. Antil (Supra), the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on that count alone. Dr. Saraf has also disputed the contentions made in the Authorisation of Arrest by the respondent No. 2, and also the determination of tax purportedly evaded by the applicant, herein, for the years involved. Dr. Saraf has submitted that materials brought on record would go to reveal that the pre-conditions for forming "Reason to Believe" Authorisation of Arrest of the applicant, herein, was clearly absent. Dr. Saraf has in this connection has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhika Agarwal Vs. UoI & Ors. reported in 2025 OnLine SC 449. 12. In the above premises, Dr. Saraf submits that the allegations levelled against the applicant, herein, being based on documentary evidence, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not called for. He further highlights that after his arrest on 16-10-2025, he was remanded for a day in the custody of the department and on his production thereafter on 17-10-2025, the applicant was remanded to judicial custody wherein he continues ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be come to the forefront. It is seen that the applicant, herein, had also admitted the statement with regard to the tax evasion so made by the said two firms. The applicant is also found to have admitted a tax liability to the extent of Rs. 1.74 Crores in respect of M/s Balaji Concast and Rs. 3.64 Crores in respect of M/s Balaji Steel Rolling Mills for the supplies made by it during the period from April, 2022 to May, 2023. 16. It is also seen that the respondent had issued three summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017, requiring the applicant, herein, to appear in person or through authorised agent before the respondent No. 2, to record his verbal statement. Although the applicant had responded to the said summons by issuing communications, he had not appeared before the respondent No. 2 as directed vide the said summons issued under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue Authorisation of Arrest (Reason to Believe) and therein it was highlighted that in addition to the evasion of tax as detected for the supplies made by the firms in question during the period from April, 2022 to May, 2023, further evasion of tax for the financial ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 17th August, 2022, the existence of the power to arrest and justification for exercise of it are quite distinct. 22. Section 69 of CGST Act, 2017 provides for the power to arrest. However, before exercising such power in a case involving offence punishable with imprisonment of less than 7(seven) years or which may extend up to 7(seven) years, justification for arrest has to be provided in terms of Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS,2023. No such justification has been made by the arresting authority, in writing, while arresting the present petitioner in this case. The contentions made by the respondents that the applicant may tamper the evidence and influence the witnesses, without there being any material brought on record basing on which the arresting authority had arrived at the satisfaction regarding existence of such a condition and without stating such reasons in writing, there has occasioned a violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS, 2023. 23. It is seen that there is no dispute in regards to the Arrest Memo issued by the respondent authorities by complying all necessary formalities under Section 69 of the CGST Act. But it is t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o authorise the arrest of the applicant, herein, was arrived at. The said aspect of the matter, has received consideration of this Court and this Court is of the prima facie view that the said aspect of the matter can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions in the matter while enlarging the petitioner, herein, on bail. 26. In view of the conclusions reached, herein above, this Court deems it proper not to examine the contentions raised by Dr. Saraf, learned Sr. counsel for the applicant on the merits of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. 27. For the reasons assigned herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant, namely, Shri Mukesh Agarwal is required to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with 02 (two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant, herein, on being released from detention shall appear before the respondent No. 2, on or before 03-11-2025 and have his statement recorded. (b) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and....