2018(12)LCX0027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
ANILBHAI JAYANTIBHAI BHUT
Versus
State of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 23529 of 2018 decided on 20/12/2018
Advocated By -
MR PR ABICHANDANI with M/S. TATVDEEP J JANI and VIRAL K SHAH for the PETITIONER
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the RESPONDENT(s)
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail in connection with order dated 22.10.2018 bearing No.DCST/ENF/DIV-1/AC-1/Arrest/2018-19/B by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax for offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
2.1 It is submitted that the applicant was apprehended under the arrest memo considering that the applicant, in due course of his business, has indulged in activity which led to evasion of GST, thereby causing loss to the State Exchequer.
2.2 It is submitted that the entire offence is based on presumptions and surmises, as nowhere in papers, it is reflected that in what capacity, the applicant was doing business and under which action of the applicant, evasion is found. It is submitted that the applicant is doing business and is connected with various firms which are doing business of manufacturing /trading of edible oil. The mention in the arrest memo regarding evasion of tax /in-put tax credit to the tune of more than Rs.5 crores is without any basis. It is submitted that during the course of business, the applicant has not taken any tax credit on the basis of GST paid on the invoices which are under investigation. It is also submitted that even if there is evasion, provisions of GST Act are sufficient to undertake exercise of recover the revenue loss. For that purpose, the applicant cannot be continued in custody.
2.3 It is submitted that no further investigation is pending qua the applicant and therefore, no useful purpose will be served in detaining the applicants behind bars.
2.4 It is submitted that maximum sentence that can be imposed for the offence is five years.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed grant of regular bail looking to the nature and gravity of the offence.
3.1 It is submitted that the offence is wide-spread and the magnitude is of transaction worth more than Rs.400/- crores. It is submitted that the investigation is complicated one and involves more than 98 companies /firms. It is submitted that prima facie, evidence is found against the applicant and therefore, complaint under the provisions of GST Act is already filed against the applicant.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers.
4.1 The Court has considered that the applicant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing /trading of edible oil.
4.2 Insofar as revenue is concerned, provisions of the GST Act are sufficient to initiate proceedings for assessment and recovery of the same.
5. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in [2012]1 SCC 40.
6. Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties do not press for further reasoned order.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicants on regular bail.
8. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with order dated 22.10.2018 bearing No.DCST/ENF/DIV-1/AC-1/Arrest/2018-19/B by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
[d] not leave India without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;
[e] shall state out of Gujarat for a period of six months, however, remain present before the investigating agency as and when called for. During their stay out of Gujarat, shall furnish address details and contact numbers to the IO;
[f] mark presence before the concerned Police Station on alternate Monday of every English calendar month for a period of six months between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.;
[g] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court;
9. The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.
10. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.
11. At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicants on bail.
12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)