Abhay Sanatbhai Bhatt VS Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

The present application seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to an offense registered as F.No.V/12-11/AE/JAB/2018-19 of the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, for an offense under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Representing the applicant, the learned Advocate asserts that given the nature of the offense, the applicant is eligible for regular bail, subject to appropriate conditions.

The current application seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning an offense registered by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant’s counsel argues that considering the nature of the offense, bail with appropriate conditions should be granted. However, the State’s representative opposes bail citing the seriousness of the offense.

During the hearing, neither party pushes for a detailed order. After considering arguments and reviewing the case’s materials, the court decides that the applicant should be granted regular bail. The decision is based on factors including the duration of the applicant’s imprisonment since January 18, 2019, the nature of the alleged offense (involving wrongful availment and passing on of input tax credit), and the possibility for the department to pursue recovery actions separately. The court refrains from delving into evidence but deems it appropriate to exercise discretion in granting bail.

The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks regular bail for an offence registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax in Bhavnagar. The applicant’s counsel argues for bail, suggesting suitable conditions can be imposed, while the State’s Advocate opposes bail citing the gravity of the offence.

After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the case’s particulars, the court decides to grant bail. Factors considered include the applicant’s time in jail since January 2019, the nature of the alleged offence involving wrongful availing of input tax credit, and the assurance from the applicant’s counsel that cooperation will be provided to the respondent department during further investigation.

The court also notes precedents where similar bail requests were granted and refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2012] 1 SCC 40. Consequently, the court allows the application, ordering the applicant’s release on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions such as not misusing liberty or acting against the prosecution’s interests.

The application presented falls under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail concerning an offense registered under F.No.V/12-11/AE/JAB/2018-19 of the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, pertaining to Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The applicant’s counsel argues for bail, proposing suitable conditions considering the nature of the offense. Conversely, the State’s representative opposes bail, emphasizing the gravity of the offense.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case’s particulars, including the allegations, offenses’ seriousness, and the accused’s role, the court opts to grant regular bail. It notes that the accused has been in custody since January 2019, facing charges of wrongful availing of input tax credit and passing it on to buyers.

The court acknowledges the possibility of the department pursuing departmental action for penalty recovery and the assurance of cooperation from the applicant’s counsel. It also cites precedents where similar cases were considered for bail.

Furthermore, the court considers the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation case.

Consequently, the court grants bail, setting a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, cooperating with authorities, surrendering the passport, marking regular attendance at the police station, and informing about any change of residence.

The release is contingent upon the applicant’s non-involvement in any other offense. Breach of bail conditions empowers the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action. The bail bond must be executed before the lower court, which can modify conditions as per legal provisions.

This case involves an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning an offence registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax in Bhavnagar. The applicant’s advocate argues for bail with suitable conditions, while the Advocate for the respondent-State opposes bail due to the gravity of the offence.

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the case’s facts and allegations, the court decides to grant bail to the applicant. The court takes into account various factors, including the applicant’s period of detention since January 18, 2019, the nature of the alleged offence related to tax credit, and the assurance of cooperation from the applicant’s lawyer regarding further investigation. The court also considers precedents where similar cases resulted in bail.

Additionally, the court references the legal precedent set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. As a result, the court grants bail to the applicant on the condition of executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to several conditions. These conditions include not misusing liberty, cooperating with the investigation, surrendering any passport, marking presence at a police station monthly, and providing the current address to authorities.

Furthermore, the court specifies that the applicant will only be released if not required in connection with any other offence at the time. Breach of the bail conditions empowers the Sessions Judge to take appropriate action. The bail bond must be executed before the lower court with jurisdiction over the case. The court retains the authority to modify or relax the conditions as per legal provisions.

Finally, the court directs that the Trial Court should not be influenced by the observations made in the bail order during the trial. The rule is made absolute, allowing for direct service.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: