Darshan Dinesh Patel VS Commissioner of Central Goods

The current petition is submitted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in connection with an alleged offense detailed in F.No.IV/16­25/PI/Zikshoo/Impex/2019­20/Gr.VI, issued by the Inspector of CGST & CE, Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Gandhinagar. The offense is said to be punishable under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The advocate representing the applicant argues that given the nature of the offense, the applicant should be granted regular bail, subject to suitable conditions.

On the other side, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State opposes the grant of regular bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense.

During the proceedings, the advocates for both parties decide not to pursue further arguments.

In summary, the application seeks regular bail for the applicant in relation to a CGST Act offense, with the applicant’s advocate arguing for bail with conditions while the State’s representative opposes it based on the gravity of the offense.

The application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertains to an offense registered under the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant’s counsel argues for bail, citing the nature of the offense and proposes suitable conditions. The Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the state opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offense.

Both parties’ advocates do not push for further arguments. After reviewing the evidence and considering the case’s specifics, including the accused’s role and the gravity of the allegations, the court decides to grant regular bail.

The court factors in several aspects: the applicant’s duration in jail since December 23, 2019, the accusation of wrongly availing input tax credit under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, and the possibility for the department to pursue penalty recovery independently. The applicant, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavaty, agrees to deposit Rs. 25 lakh within eight weeks of release and pledges cooperation with further investigations.

Overall, the court deems it appropriate to grant bail, considering the circumstances and the applicant’s willingness to cooperate and meet certain conditions.

In the current legal matter, an application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail for the applicant in connection with an offence registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The offence pertains to alleged wrongful availing of input tax credit and passing it on to buyers. The applicant’s advocate argues for bail, proposing suitable conditions.

The state, represented by the Learned APP, opposes bail citing the gravity of the offence. However, both sides do not press for further arguments. After considering the submissions, evidence, and gravity of the accusations, the court exercises discretion to grant bail to the applicant.

Several factors are considered in granting bail, including the applicant’s time spent in jail, the nature of the alleged offence, and the possibility of departmental action for recovery of penalties. The applicant, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavaty, offers to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakh and cooperate with further investigations, further supporting the case for bail.

The court also references legal precedents, particularly the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, in arriving at its decision. Consequently, the application for bail is allowed. The applicant is granted bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the same amount, subject to several conditions ensuring compliance and non-interference with the investigation. These conditions include surrendering the passport, regular reporting to the police, and providing the current residential address to the Investigating Officer.

The application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is made in connection with an offence registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant, represented by their advocate, seeks bail with suitable conditions, while the State’s advocate opposes it due to the gravity of the offence.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the case details, the court decides to grant bail. Several factors are considered, including the applicant’s time spent in jail, the nature of the alleged offence related to tax credit misuse, and the willingness of the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and deposit a certain amount.

The court also considers legal precedents, particularly the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, and decides to allow the application for bail. The applicant is ordered to execute a personal bond and meet specific conditions, such as surrendering their passport, marking their presence at the police station regularly, and providing their current address.

The court emphasizes that the applicant’s bail is subject to conditions, and any breach would lead to appropriate action. It allows for modifications to the conditions as per legal requirements. Additionally, the court instructs that its observations in this bail order should not influence the trial proceedings.

Finally, the court makes the ruling absolute and permits direct service of the order.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: