Paresh Nathalal Chauhan VS State of Gujarat

The court has considered arguments from both sides in a case regarding evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST). The appellant’s counsel emphasized that the GST evasion proceedings stemmed from a search operation during which officers stayed in a house for over a week, including with female members. This aspect was criticized by the High Court in its judgment dated December 24, 2019. The appellant argues that this situation violated their rights and warrants special consideration in the petition for leave.

The court heard arguments from both parties in a case concerning the appellant, who emphasized several key points. Firstly, they highlighted the extended presence of officers during a search operation, which involved occupying a house for over a week, particularly noting the adverse comments made by the High Court regarding this matter in a previous judgment. The appellant also pointed out that despite the Supreme Court issuing a notice in response to a special leave petition filed by the State, the officers involved had not been given an opportunity to present their side before the statutory protection was waived.

Furthermore, the appellant’s counsel argued against their client’s prolonged custody, which amounted to 25 months out of a potential 5-year sentence duration. They suggested that the ongoing investigation seemed more focused on retribution for the appellant’s previous legal actions rather than genuine pursuit of justice. Additionally, attention was drawn to a counter-affidavit filed by the State, alleging the appellant’s significant involvement in a scam and asserting that confidential investigations were ongoing to identify other participants.

Conversely, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) staunchly defended the court’s order, arguing against granting bail to the appellant. The ASG characterized the appellant as a habitual offender, implying a pattern of misconduct that warranted continued detention.

Overall, the proceedings involved a contentious debate over the appellant’s bail request, with each side presenting compelling arguments regarding the appellant’s involvement in the alleged offenses and the fairness of the legal process.

The court has considered arguments from both sides regarding the appellant’s case, particularly emphasizing the circumstances surrounding the GST evasion proceedings. The appellant’s counsel highlighted the prolonged search operation conducted by officers, which the High Court criticized in a previous judgment. It was noted that the Supreme Court had issued notice to the state in a special leave petition, acknowledging the absence of a hearing for the concerned officers before waiving their statutory protection.

Furthermore, the appellant’s counsel emphasized the lengthy period of custody endured by the appellant, amounting to 25 months out of a potential 5-year sentence. They argued that the ongoing investigation seemed more focused on retribution than on genuine legal proceedings, suggesting a vendetta against the appellant for challenging adverse orders.

Conversely, the Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) staunchly defended the detention order, labeling the appellant as a habitual offender with prior violations of the law. The ASG asserted the necessity of keeping the appellant in custody to uncover the full extent of the evasion scheme, which allegedly involved a substantial sum of 64 crores and implicated several absconding accomplices.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the appellant should not be held indefinitely, especially after already serving 25 months in custody, which accounts for nearly half of the potential sentence. The filing of a complaint further supported the notion that legal proceedings were underway. The court also acknowledged that the respondent’s stance might have been influenced by prior actions taken by the appellant and family members against the officers, despite certain proceedings still pending regarding those actions.

Given these circumstances, the court decided to grant bail to the appellant, subject to terms and conditions determined by the Trial Court. This decision reflects a balance between the appellant’s rights and the ongoing legal process, ensuring fairness and justice in the case.

In a detailed court proceeding, both sides presented their arguments. The appellant’s counsel emphasized the questionable conduct of officers during a search operation related to GST evasion, which had drawn criticism from the High Court. They highlighted that despite the Supreme Court issuing a notice in response to the state’s petition, the officers involved weren’t heard before the statutory protection was waived. The appellant had spent 25 months in custody out of a potential 5-year sentence, with the investigation still ongoing. The appellant’s counsel alleged that the officers were seeking revenge for previous adverse orders.

On the contrary, the Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) defended the order, labeling the appellant as a habitual offender involved in past violations of the law. The ASG argued that several other accused were absconding and that detaining them would help uncover the root of the problem, particularly since the evasion amount was substantial.

After considering the arguments, the court found the appellant’s prolonged detention unjust, especially given that it amounted to nearly half of the potential sentence, with a complaint already filed. The court acknowledged that the respondent’s stance might have been influenced by the appellant’s actions against the officers, which had resulted in some adverse consequences.

Considering these factors, the court decided to grant bail to the appellant under specific terms and conditions to be determined by the Trial Court. However, the court warned the appellant against engaging in similar activities in the future.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: