TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed. It is directed that the petitioners be released from custody on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5,00,000/- each with separate sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before it as and when required further subject to the following conditions imposed. - MCRC NO.21628/2020, M.Cr.C No.21618/2020 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2020 - Shri Justice Virender Singh For the Petitioners : Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel with Shri AbhinavDhanodkar, learned For the Respondent/Union of India : Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counse ORDER 1. Both these petitions have arisen out of the same crime number of the same office/police station, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These are the first applications under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as GST Act ), Ss. 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the undertakings/ companies of the government or from the societies run by the government; therefore, clandestine purchase is not possible. Rest of the raw material is purchased from the open market but only from the traders duly registered under the GST through invoices. Therefore, there has never been any scope to evade the tax. 5. It is asserted that the petitioners have never confessed anything before the officials. Their statements were recorded under threat and pressure. They retracted them immediately after coming out of the fear. 6. It is further averred that the petitioners were doing their business honestly and were paying GST to the tune of ₹ 7 crore per month regularly, but due to unprecedented circumstances of spread of COVID-19 pandemic and complete lockdown pursuant thereto; there was some delay in paper work and submission of the invoices etc. Taking advantage of this beyond control peculiar circumstance, the officials of the department abused their authority, presumed the tax evasion and assessed the amount only on the basis of their conjecture and surmises as there was no production during the period of lockdown. Nil electricity consumption establishes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g around 70-80 crores G.S.T. per anum on an average. Their detention would cause loss of this amount to the State exchequer. About 150 workers are working in the firm of the petitioners. In case of their detention, the work of the firm will be at a halt and hence, affect the survival of the families of those 150 workers. The offence is punishable with maximum 5 years imprisonment and is triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The petitioners are ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court, therefore, it is prayed that they be granted bail. 12. The petitioners have relied upon Joti Prasad Vs. State of Haryana 1993 supp. SCC 497, P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforecement 2019 Lawsuit (SC) 1947, D.K. Sethi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010) Vol.14 SCC 496, Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2014) 16 SCC 623, C. Pradeep Vs. The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Selman and Anr SLP 6834/2019, Madhav Gopaldas Shah Vs. State of Gujarat, Prasad Purshottam Mantri Vs. UOI and Ors, Sanjay Kumar Bhuwalka Vs. UOI 2018 SCC Online Cal 4674, Mohit Vijay Vs. UOI (Rajasthan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 69 of the G.S.T. Act, 2017. As per Section 132(5), since the G.S.T. evasion detected is more than five crores rupees, the offence is cognizable and non- bailable. There is every likelihood of the petitioners affecting the investigation and tampering with the witness. The officials of the DGGI were assaulted when they tried to search the house of Kishore Wadhwani for which an FIR is lodged with Police Station--Juni, Indore. 16. In the case of P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs. UOI W.P. No.4764 of 2019 at paras 56 and 57, the Telangana High Court has observed that the object of arrest is to prevent a person from committing any offence or from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner or to prevent such person from any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and to do proper investigation or inquiry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)4430/2019 has upheld this observation the High Court of Telangana. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No.730/2013 decided on 9th May, 2013 in the case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation has observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
