Hitesh Gaurishankar Patel VS State of Gujarat

The application in question seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to an incident related to Arrest Memo No. CBIC-DIN-20220764WU000000DE16 issued on 19/07/2022 by the Inspector (A.E.), CGST, Gandhinagar. This memo implicates the applicant in an offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), read with Section 137 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

Representing the applicant, Mr. Asim Pandya, a learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr. Gaurav Vyas, advocate, contends that the current arrest is a retaliatory measure against the applicant’s filing of Special Civil Application No. 9060 of 2022. This previous application appears to have contested the actions of respondent no. 2, whose involvement seems pertinent to the current legal proceedings.

The argument put forward suggests a connection between the applicant’s legal actions and the subsequent arrest, indicating a possible abuse of power or unjust targeting by the authorities. The applicant’s legal team appears to be leveraging this perceived connection to support their case for bail.

This summary highlights the legal context surrounding the bail application, emphasizing the alleged retaliatory nature of the arrest and the ongoing legal dispute involving the applicant.

The application in question seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pertaining to an arrest made on Memo No. CBIC-DIN-20220764WU000000DE16 dated 19/07/2022 by the Inspector (A.E.), CGST, Gandhinagar. The arrest is related to an alleged offense under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i) read with Section 137 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”).

Represented by Mr. Asim Pandya, a learned Senior Counsel, with the assistance of Mr. Gaurav Vyas, an advocate, the applicant contends that the arrest is retaliatory to Special Civil Application No.9060 of 2022, filed by the applicant. This civil application challenges the actions of respondent no.2, particularly the issuance of 24 summons and inspections under Section 67 of the CGST Act, along with the ensuing proceedings. The defense argues that the alleged offense under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, which relates to intention to evade tax or adopt fraudulent practices, is not substantiated in this case. They assert that there’s no evidence of sales without invoices, a crucial aspect under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act. Consequently, they appeal for the applicant’s release on regular bail, suggesting the imposition of suitable conditions, considering the nature of the offense and the applicant’s role.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent no.1-State opposes the bail application, citing the gravity and nature of the offense.

Additionally, Mr. Devang Vyas, assisted by Mr. Priyank P. Lodha, appearing for respondent no.2, has submitted a reply along with relevant documents, which have been taken into record.

In the hearing, advocates for both sides do not pursue further detailed arguments, and the court has reviewed the application, along with the submissions and documents from both parties.

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the application for regular bail in connection with an arrest memo issued by the Inspector (A.E.) of CGST, Gandhinagar, on July 19, 2022. The offense is purportedly under Section 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i) read with Section 137 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Mr. Asim Pandya, assisted by Mr. Gaurav Vyas, representing the applicant, argues that the arrest is a reaction to a previous legal action taken by the applicant against the issuance of summons and inspections under the CGST Act. He contends that the alleged offense does not indicate any intention to evade taxes or engage in fraudulent practices, nor does it involve a sale without an invoice, thus not qualifying under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act. He requests bail with appropriate conditions given the nature of the offense and the applicant’s role.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposes bail citing the gravity of the offense. Mr. Devang Vyas, assisted by Mr. Priyank P. Lodha, representing respondent no.2, submits a reply along with relevant documents.

After considering arguments and perusing documents, the Court opines that, without delving into detailed evidence, the case warrants bail. Hence, the applicant is granted bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Conditions imposed include not abusing liberty, refraining from acts harmful to the prosecution, surrendering passport if any, not leaving India without prior permission, providing current residence address to the Investigating Officer and the Court, and seeking permission before changing residence.

The applicant will be released unless required for any other offense. The summary details a legal proceeding filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in connection with an arrest memo issued on July 19, 2022, under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Mr. Asim Pandya, representing the applicant, argues against the alleged offence under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, stating no intention to evade tax or engage in fraudulent practices. He appeals for bail with appropriate conditions. The State opposes bail citing the gravity of the offence. Respondent no.2 submits a reply with relevant documents. The court, without delving into detailed evidence, grants bail, emphasizing the applicant’s discretion. Bail is set at Rs. 10,000 with various conditions, including surrendering the passport, not leaving India without permission, and providing a current address. The court warns against misuse of liberty and instructs the lower court to execute the bail bond. Breach of conditions allows the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action. The court’s observations are noted to have no influence on the trial’s outcome. The ruling is made absolute with permitted direct service.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: