TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also one of the Directors of the said companies. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that, in their capacity as Directors, they have evaded tax amounting to Rs.20,63,97,337/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Sixty-Three Lakh Ninety-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Seven only). Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused solely on the basis of the statement of one Manoj Vijay, whose firm, M/s Mahaveer Trading Company, is alleged to have supplied scrap material/TMT bars to the petitioners' firms without issuance of bills. It is contended that the petitioners have no association with the said Manoj Vijay or his firm. Learned counsel further submits that although Mr. Gyan Chand, who is the General Manager of M/s PJIUPL and the authorized signatory of M/s TDSCL, has alleged in his statement that such transactions were carried out at the directions of petitioner No.1, except for the said allegation, there is no material on record to even prima facie establish the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence. 3. It is further submitted that against the alleged tax evasion of Rs.20,63,97,337/-, the petitioners have alr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal No.3219/2025, decided on 28.07.2015. 15. Hemant Sharma versus UOI, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6501/2025, decided on 26.09.2025. 5. Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Standing Counsel is appearing on behalf of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). It is contended that serious allegations of tax evasion to the tune of Rs.20,63,97,337/- have been levelled against the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on a factual report dated 06.10.2025. From a perusal of the said factual report, it emerges that the petitioners did not appear before the DGGI for recording of their statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act, nor were any written submissions furnished on their behalf. The record further indicates that no communication was received by the Department reflecting any intention of the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation. It is also noted that although interim protection was granted to the petitioners by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025, the petitioners did not appear before the DGGI despite issuance of summons. The petitioners appeared before the Department onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception. The question whether bail should be granted in a case has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case. There can be no straitjacket formula or settled rules for exercise of discretion but the discretion to grant bail in the case of a non-bailable offence has to be exercised in accordance with the rules and principles laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure and various judicial precedents. There cannot be a set formula for considering the plea of bail of an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances relevant to the case. 9. Economic offences stand on a different footing for the purpose of bail considerations, as they constitute a distinct class of crimes involving deep-rooted conspiracies, large-scale loss of public funds, and far-reaching adverse impact on the economic fabric of the nation. Such offences are committed with deliberate design and cool calculation, driven solely by the motive of unlawful personal gain and a desire to become rich quickly, with complete disregard for societal consequences. Persons indulging in such criminal activities show scant concern for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 12. In P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in AIR 2019 (SC) 4198, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for grant of anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving economic offences like money laundering, reiterated that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases. It emphasized that custodial interrogation is often essential during investigation, as it can lead to discovery of concealed material and crucial information, which might be obstructed if the accused is protected by pre-arrest bail. Referring to State versus Anil Sharma, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Court noted that interrogation under bail protection becomes a mere formality, while custodial questioning is more effective. In cases involving economic offences, the Court highlighted their seriousness and complexity, observing that such crimes are committed with deliberate design, harming the economy and public interest. Economic offences were described as a class apart, requiring a different approach to bail. It relied on precedents like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy versus CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 and Directorate of Enforcement versus Ashok Kuman Jain, rep....