(2024) taxcode.in 16 HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ashish Bansal
v.
Union of India
MCRC No. 3697 of 2023
Decided on 03-Jan-24
Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Add. Info:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Virat Verma.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Maneesh Sharma.
Judgment/Order:
Order on Board
03.01.2024
1. This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail to applicant who is in custody since 7.2.2023 in connection with Crime No.167/21-22 registered at Directorate General of Intelligence, GST, Raipur for commission of offence under Section 16, 132 (1) (b) & 132 (1) (c) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’).
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that based on the intelligence report against applicant, the investigation was conducted under the provisions of the Act of 2017 in which it revealed that applicant being common partner in three partnership firms namely M/s Five Star Trading Companies (GSTIN: 22AAHFF8008J1ZJ), M/s Bharma Sales (GSTIN: 22ABAFP4753E1ZL); and M/s Pushpak Trading Co. (GSTIN: 22ABAFP4753E1ZL), had made purchase transactions with M/s AB Infrastructure and Engineering, M/s NB Marketing and M/s RLA Infrastructure and Engineering. Only paper transactions have been shown through aforementioned firms, invoices have been issued without any underlying supply of goods, Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed and thereby applicant defrauded the government ex-chequer. After obtaining sanction, as required under Section 132 (6) of the Act of 2017, the complaint was filed for the offence punishable under Section 132 read with Section 20 of the Act of 2017. Applicant was arrested in aforementioned case on 7.2.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The entire interrogation/investigation on the part of applicant has been completed. Total amount of alleged tax evasion appears to be Rs.6.75 Crore only. The offence under the Act of 2017 and the provision under which complaint is filed, is compoundable. After final ascertainment of amount of tax not deposited by applicant, he will deposit the same. Applicant has already completed about ten months of pre-trial detention period, therefore, he may be enlarged on regular bail. He further contended that there is no direct material to link the applicant in instant criminal case. There is no provision under the Act of 2017 to club the income of three different firms and as the applicant has already suffered long pre-trial detention, he may be released on bail. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the order of this Court dated 07.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8060/2022.
4. Learned counsel for the non-applicant opposing submissions of learned counsel for applicant, would submit that applicant has intentionally created three partnership firms, there was no supply of goods and on the basis of forged invoices the benefit of input tax credit was availed. During the course of investigation, it revealed that applicant has issued forged invoices to several companies and as per details collected during investigation, applicant has caused loss of Rs.20,96,89,839/-. Fraud is played at PAN India level and investigation is still going on. Release of applicant on bail may hamper the investigation, which is in progress, and there is apprehension of destroying evidence and influencing witnesses to be examined during investigation. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision in the cases of Paritosh Kumar Singh vs. Senior Intell. Officer [MCRC No. 6764/2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh], Pankaj Agrawal vs. Union of India [MCRC No. 3769/2019], Bajan Lal Bishnoi @ Rohan vs. Superintendent of GST [Crl. O.P. No. 7672/2021, Madras High Court], Amit Beriwal vs. State of Orrisa [BLAPL No. 2217/2020, Orrisa High Court], Chhaya Devi vs. Union of India [2021(52) G.S.T.L. 390 (All.), Allahabad High Court], Neeraj Karande vs. Directorate GST Intelligence [2021(50) B.S.T.L. 472 (Telangana), Telangana High Court], Arvind Kumar Munka vs. Union of India [2020SCC OnLine Cal 531], Ajaj Ahamad vs. State of Odisha [2021(53) G.S.T.L. 390 (Ori.)], Sanjay Dhingra vs. Directorate GST Intelligence [Cri. Misc. M-50256/2019, Punjab and Haryana High Court], P.V. Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India [2019 SCC OnLine TS 2516; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4430/2019], Union of India vs. Sapna Jain [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4322-4324/2019], Santosh Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India [2021(52) G.S.T.L. 258 (Ori.), Orrisa High Court], Sandeep Goyal vs. Union of India [Bail Application No. 1521/2020, Rajasthan High Court; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1803/2020], Basudev Mittal vs. Union of India [MCRC No. 3919/2022, Chhattisgarh High Court; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8128/2022].
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused documents placed in record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for applicant that investigation is going on is not disputed by learned counsel for applicant. From the documents placed before this Court by learned counsel for non-applicant, it is reflecting that applicant was served with notice under Section 70 of the Act of 2017 and during investigation, non-applicant has found applicant involved in creating forged invoices availing input tax credits to the tune of Rs.20,96,89,839/-. Mere fact that applicant is in jail since 7.2.2023 cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail, particularly when there is submission of learned counsel for non-applicant that investigation is still going on.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 observed as under:-
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:-
“5…..The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest….”
24. While granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, 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 securing the presence 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. It has also to be kept in mind that for the 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. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
8. Further, in SLP (Cr) No.1803/2020 (Sandeep Goyal vs. UOI) the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.4.2020 even after considering the submission of learned counsel for applicant therein that applicant is in jail for last one year and eight months; some of accused persons are released on bail, has refused to grant bail to applicant taking note of the fact that investigation is not complete, and disposed of SLP observing that the State shall make endeavour to complete the investigation within specified period. In the case at hand also, the applicant is involved in the economic offence, investigation is still going on.
9. So far as the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.8060/2022, which is relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, is concerned, the same is of no help to the applicant for the reason that in the said case on the date of consideration of bail application, the investigation was over. Whereas, in the case at hand, the investigation is still going on.
10. In the above circumstances, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow application of applicant for grant of regular bail and it is, accordingly, rejected.
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
