Rajesh Kumar Dudani VS The state of Uttarakhand

This appeal stems from a judgment and order dated September 22, 2022, issued by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which rejected the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. The bail was sought in connection with summons dated May 12, 2022, and May 20, 2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State GST Dehradun under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax (GST) / Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The appellant’s counsel argues that since Section 132(i)(iii) of the GST Act prescribes a punishment that can extend to a maximum term of one year, and considering that the case relies entirely on documentary evidence and other electronic evidence, the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail. The counsel highlights that the nature of the evidence involved reduces the risk of the appellant tampering with it, thus supporting the plea for anticipatory bail.

This appeal concerns a judgment and order dated September 22, 2022, by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which rejected the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. The bail was sought in connection with summonses issued on May 12, 2022, and May 20, 2022, by the Deputy Commissioner of State GST Dehradun under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellant’s counsel argued that since the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 132(i)(iii) of the Act is up to one year and the case is primarily based on documentary and electronic evidence already available on record, custodial interrogation of the appellant is unnecessary.

On the other hand, the Additional Solicitor General, representing the respondent, strongly opposed the bail plea. He suggested that to protect the revenue interests, the appellant should be required to deposit at least half of the alleged revenue loss, amounting to Rs. 14.68 crores, which resulted from providing fake invoices to multiple firms as discovered during the investigation.

In response, the appellant’s counsel contended that no final assessment had been made under the GST Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be considered legally liable to make any payment, let alone deposit any amount as a condition for being granted anticipatory bail.

The Court considered the arguments and reviewed the records. The discussion referenced a similar case, Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023, Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that imposed conditions for granting bail. This context was considered relevant for the current appeal.

This appeal concerns a judgment and order dated September 22, 2022, by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which rejected the anticipatory bail application of the appellant. The case stems from summons issued on May 12, 2022, and May 20, 2022, by the Deputy Commissioner of State GST Dehradun under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellant’s counsel argued that, under Section 132 (i) (iii), the maximum punishment for the alleged offense is one year. Since the case is based on documentary and electronic evidence already on record, the appellant should not require custodial interrogation.

The respondent’s counsel, the Learned Additional Solicitor General, strongly opposed the anticipatory bail. He argued that, to protect the state’s revenue interests, the appellant should be required to deposit at least half of the alleged revenue loss of Rs. 14.68 Crores. This loss was reportedly caused by the appellant providing fake invoices to various entities, as revealed during the investigation.

In response, the appellant’s counsel contended that there had been no final assessment under the GST Act. Without such an assessment, the appellant could not be legally required to make any payment, let alone deposit any amount as a condition for bail.

Upon reviewing the arguments and the record, the court referenced similar cases. In Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023 (Subhash Chouhan vs. Union of India), the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that imposed a deposit condition for granting bail. In this case, the Additional Solicitor General had conceded that such a condition could not be imposed for granting bail. This was noted in the judgment dated January 20, 2023.

Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No. 523/2023 (Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.), the court reaffirmed this view in a judgment dated February 17, 2023.

Given the identical nature of the present case to these prior appeals, the court saw no reason to deviate from its previous rulings. Thus, the court concluded that the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail without the condition of depositing any amount, as suggested by the Additional Solicitor General. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant, granting anticipatory bail without imposing the deposit condition.

This appeal concerns the judgment and order dated September 22, 2022, by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which denied anticipatory bail to the appellant. The appellant faced summons issued on May 12, 2022, and May 20, 2022, by the Deputy Commissioner of State GST Dehradun under Section 70 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The appellant’s counsel argued that, given the punishment prescribed under Section 132 (i) (iii) of the Act extends to a maximum of one year, and since the case relies entirely on documentary and electronic evidence already on record, custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), representing the respondent, opposed the bail request vehemently. The ASG contended that to safeguard revenue interests, the appellant should be required to deposit at least half of the alleged revenue loss of Rs. 14.68 Crores, which was attributed to the issuance of fake invoices uncovered during the investigation.

In response, the appellant’s counsel argued that no final assessment under the GST Act had been made. Consequently, the appellant was not legally obligated to make any payment or deposit any amount as a bail condition.

The court reviewed the arguments and the records. It referenced a similar case, Subhash Chouhan Vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 186/2023), where the Supreme Court on January 20, 2023, set aside a High Court order that imposed a deposit condition for granting bail. In that case, the ASG conceded that such a condition should not be imposed while granting bail.

This stance was reaffirmed in another similar case, Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 523/2023), decided on February 17, 2023.

Given that the facts of the present case were identical to these precedents, the court found no reason to deviate from the established view. Consequently, the court decided that the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail without any deposit condition as suggested by the ASG.

Thus, the court ordered that if the appellant is arrested, he should be released immediately, subject to any terms and conditions the Trial Court or Investigating Agency may deem appropriate. As a result, the judgment and order dated September 22, 2022, by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:
Supreme Court of India

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law