The court's decision hinged on the admissibility of the petitioner's statements and the evidence presented regarding his alleged involvement in the tax evasion scheme.

JUDGMENT

Virender Singh, J. - This is the first application 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 Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the 'Department').

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner began with the arguments that the only fault of the petitioner is that he is the landlord of the premises where his tenant, who runs a factory, allegedly evaded the tax by clandestine sale of Pan Masala. The petitioner is neither a Partner of his tenant M/s Vishnu Essence nor in any other way concerned with it. But, he has been posed as if he is the only responsible person for whatever has allegedly been done against the law by his tenant, while no document, what-so-ever it may be, has been produced by the department to show his involvement in the alleged tax evasion.

3. In reply, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner is Director of a Media Company, which publishes a daily newspaper in the name and style of "Dabang Dunia". Several vehicles found indulged in clandestine removal/transportation of Pan Masala were having sticker of Dabang Dunia press and drivers of these vehicles were found carrying Identity Cards of Dabang Dunia. This shows that the petitioner was well involved in the alleged tax evasion. Apart from that, statements of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 70 of G.S.T. Act have also been referred by the learned ASG wherein the authors have disclosed that actually the petitioner is whole sole Owner/Proprietor/In-charge of the entire business of M/s Vishnu Essence or Ellora Tobacco Co. Ltd or M/s. AAA Enterprises or M/s Namrata Impacs and so on. He is the kingpin of entire empire of business or trade of all these firms. He had effective control over their factory operations and is the ultimate financial beneficiary in this illicit Pan Masala trade. He is the mastermind or the key accused of the alleged tax evasion, which otherwise runs in crores of rupees. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.

4. To counter the argument in respect of statements recorded under Section 70 of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that immediately after getting opportunity, the petitioner as well as other co-accused persons have retracted their statements, which were otherwise recorded involuntarily under the threat and pressure of the officials of the department, therefore, they cannot be relied upon at this stage. Otherwise also, looking at the provisions of Section 136 of the Act itself, much weight can not be attached to such statements during the life time or availability of the author. Lastly, it is contented that these statements didn't lead to any recovery. No supporting evidence either documentary or oral could be collected during investigation. Therefore, on the basis of such statements, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner at least at this stage.

5. Much time has been spent by both the parties to convince the Court or to counter that the arrest of the petitioner is contrary to the powers and procedure prescribed by the law.

6. It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the Director of media company Dabang Duniya but it is contended that neither they are concerned nor are responsible for unauthorized use of any sticker or ID card by any vehicle or driver found indulged in clandestine transportation of any taxable goods.

7. Pendency of investigation is also taken as a ground for dismissing the petition, which is countered on the ground that no further custodial interrogation is requested by the department and the respondent is bound to file the chargesheet within 60 days of the arrest of the petitioner and as per date of arrest i.e. 13.06.20