2025 (3) TMI 1312 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular bail - offence punishable under section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST) 2017 under Clause(a) or Clause (b) or Clause(c) or Clause (d) of the said section 132(5) - iron scrap and miscellaneous scrap have been transported by way of vehicle using fake Invoices - HELD THAT - After reading of Section 69 of CGST Act 2017 there must be reason to believe that a person has committed an offence and from perusal of Section 132 of the Act it is clear that there must be reason to believe of tax evasion or condition as specified in section 132 for arresting of such person under the Act - On perusal of Section 132 of CGST Act it is clear that the punishment for the alleged offence is up to five years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. Bail application allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST), 2017, specifically in light of the allegations of tax evasion and the conditions stipulated under Section 132 of the Act.
• Whether the arrest of the petitioner was justified under the legal framework, considering the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance for arrest and bail in relation to offenses punishable under the CGST Act, 2017.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to Bail under CGST Act, 2017

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner is charged under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, which prescribes penalties for offenses related to tax evasion. The punishment for such offenses can extend up to five years of imprisonment if the tax evasion exceeds five hundred lakh rupees. The Supreme Court precedent emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of arrest only when custodial investigation is required or if there is a risk of the accused absconding or influencing witnesses.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered the Supreme Court's guidance on the necessity of arrest, noting that arrest should not be routine and must be justified by specific circumstances such as the risk of absconding or non-cooperation with the investigation.
• Key evidence and findings: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in generating fake invoices and e-way bills, causing a significant loss of revenue. However, the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and had complied with tax obligations.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of personal liberty and the necessity of arrest, determining that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and there was no evidence of potential absconding or witness tampering.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court balanced the prosecution's allegations of substantial revenue loss against the petitioner's argument of compliance and lack of criminal antecedents, ultimately favoring the petitioner's position on bail entitlement.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner should be granted bail, considering the lack of compelling reasons for continued detention.

Issue 2: Justification of Arrest under CGST Act and Guidelines

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Ministry of Finance's guidelines for arrest and bail under the CGST Act, 2017, outline the conditions and procedures for arrest, emphasizing that arrests should not be made merely because they are lawful but should be justified by necessity.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinized the arrest procedure, noting the absence of specific mention of the amount of tax evasion in the arrest memo and the non-compliance with arrest guidelines.
• Key evidence and findings: The petitioner highlighted procedural lapses in the arrest process, including the lack of detailed reasoning in the arrest memo and non-adherence to Ministry guidelines.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the Ministry's guidelines and the Supreme Court's emphasis on personal liberty, finding that the arrest was not substantiated by the necessary conditions outlined in the guidelines.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered the prosecution's focus on revenue loss against the procedural deficiencies in the arrest, ultimately prioritizing the procedural safeguards and guidelines.
• Conclusions: The Court determined that the arrest was not justified under the CGST Act and the Ministry's guidelines, supporting the decision to grant bail.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person."
• Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that arrests should not be made routinely and must be justified by specific circumstances, such as the necessity for custodial investigation or the risk of the accused absconding.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of justification for the arrest under the CGST Act and the Ministry's guidelines, and underscoring the importance of personal liberty.