IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Peeyush Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21223 of 2022
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Bail - Offence under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 132 (1) (a) - Section 132 (1) (i) - Section 132 (5)
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail in a criminal case arising from a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) for offences under Section 132 (1) (a), Section 132 (1) (i), and Section 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant was accused of illicit supply of perfumery compounds without issuing tax invoices and without payment of GST.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the severity of the punishment, the compoundable nature of the offences, the applicant's payment of tax, interest, and penalty, the pending trial, the absence of custodial interrogation, and the lack of flight risk. The court found it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.
Issues: The severity of the alleged offences, the applicant's cooperation in the investigation, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence were key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the need to consider the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and other relevant factors in economic offences. The court also highlighted the compoundable nature of the offences and the absence of a flight risk.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant on the conditions of furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and adherence to specific conditions related to tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and appearance before the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal, Ms. Tanya Makker, Sri. Malay Prasad, Ms. Saloni Mathur and Sri. Piyush Kant Shukla, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi and Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI).
2. By means of the instant application, the applicant is seeking his release on bail in Criminal Case No. 7646 of 2022 in the Court of learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences)/Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar, arising out of a complaint filed in respect of offence under Section 132 (1) (a) read with Section 132 (1) (i) and 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 22-12-2021 the Officers of the DGGI started making a search on the residential and official premises of the applicant at Kannuaj and Kanpur, which continued till 28-12-2021. Cash amounting to Rs. 196.57 Crores was seized from the applicant’s premises besides recovery of 23 kilograms gold, which was handed over to the Officers of the Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence. The applicant was arrested on 26-12-2021.
4. On 22-02-2022, the DGGI filed a complaint before the learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences)/Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-III, Kanpur Nagar against the applicant seeking his prosecution and punishment for committing the aforesaid offences. It has been stated in the complaint that the applicant is one of the partners in the firm M/S Odochem Industries and he used to operate and manage two proprietorship concerns namely Odosynth Inc. (of which the applicant’s wife Smt. Kalpana Jain is the proprietor) and M/s Flora Naturale (of which Smt. Vijay Laxmi Jain, wife of Sri Ambrish Kumar Jain is the proprietor) and it was revealed during investigation that the aforesaid firms operated by the applicant along with his brother Ambrish Kumar Jain were collectively engaged in illicit supply of finished goods, namely perfumery compounds, without issuing any tax invoice and without payment of GST.
5. It has further been stated in the complaint that in his voluntary statement recorded on 25-26.12.2021, 06-07-08.01.2022 and 05.02.2022 under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, the applicant had admitted having made illicit supply of perfumery compounds by the aforesaid firms and he had offered to pay Rs. 52 Crores towards his tax liability along with the applicable interest and penalty and that he has managed purchase of raw materials required for manufacturing of perfumery compounds without accounting for in the books and without payment of GST, but he has not disclosed the names and particulars of the buyers and sellers of the aforesaid firms.
6. As per the complaint averments, the amount of GST evasion far exceeds Rs. 500 lakhs prescribed under Section 132 (1) (i) of the Act and the offence committed by the applicant is punishable for a term which may extend to five years.
7. On 02-03-2022, the applicant filed an application before the learned Trial Court for being released on bail and on 05-02-2022, the Trial Court passed an order rejecting the bail application on the ground that the applicant is an active partner in all the three firms; that more than Rs. 196.58 Crores cash was seized from the applicant’s premises; that the financial records of the firms showed different liability of tax than seized amount of cash and no reasonable explanation was provided for the huge amount of cash seized; that the applicant has neither denied the ownership of the searched premises nor did he deny possession of the huge amount of the cash; that the matter is serious in nature and is very harmful to the economic health of the country and granting bail in such a matter would be likely to promote such type of modusoperandi in evasion of tax.
8. On 04-04-2022, the
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India
The grant of bail is the general rule, and refusal is the exception, especially in economic offences. The severity of the offence, the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, and the ....
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
The court established that in cases of economic offences, while the gravity of the allegations is significant, the presumption of innocence and the nature of evidence must also be considered when dec....
The court reaffirmed that bail in economic offences must adhere to legal classifications; deposit of funds does not alter the non-bailable nature of offences exceeding specified monetary thresholds.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.