(2021) taxcode.in 144 HC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vinaykant Ameta
v.
Union of India
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18243/2021
Decided on 07-Dec-2021
Mr. Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Add. Info:
For Appellant(s): Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Adv., Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Adv., Mr. Harish Tripathi, Adv., Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI.
Judgment/Order:
Order
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur, relating to offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(a), (f),(h),(j),(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simply Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.10.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent’s department does not have adequate data for evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crore. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that case of the respondent depends on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that maximum punishment in this case is 5 years. There is no concrete evidence that petitioner had created any kind of false record. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent department had failed to seize any unaccounted bill regarding packaging of tabacco in the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that evaded tax on seized material is Rs.8,65,595/-. So, the tax evasion is below 5 crore. So, it is bailable as per the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited deposited Rs.60 crore as a protest and offence against the petitioner is compoundable and triable by Magistrate. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (Bail AppN.3771/2021 and Crl.M.A.16552/2021) decided on 26.11.2021 and the judgment passed by this Court in Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16083/2021) decided on 04.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is working as a Director in the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. So, he is responsible for the tax evasion. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that till today, total tax evasion is Rs.869 Crore. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had created the fake firm for tax evasion. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that investigation is still going on. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that if they had not evaded the tax then no occasion to deposit of Rs.60 Crore arises. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that department had summoned the various persons of the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited Group for investigation but they had not turned up for investigation till today. So, the bail application be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
It is admitted position that the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had evaded the tax. GST department had seized the one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. Department had collected data till today, tax evasion of Rs.869 Crore. As per version of learned counsel for the petitioner, they had deposited Rs.60 Crore as a protest. In my opinion, if they had not evaded the tax, then there would have been no occasion to deposit of Rs.60 Crore as a protest. Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA), J
Original judgment copy is available here.