Subhash Kumar Singh VS State Of Assam

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) by the petitioner, Subhash Kumar Singh, in connection with BI(E.O.) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021. The case was registered under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017, which pertains to serious offenses involving tax evasion. The petitioner, having been arrested on 12th July 2021, is seeking bail, claiming he has been in detention for a considerable period in connection with the ongoing investigation.

The hearing of the bail application took place with the petitioner being represented by Dr. A.K. Saraf, a senior counsel, who was assisted by Advocate Amit Goyal. The prosecution, representing the state of Assam, was led by Mr. M. Phukan, the Public Prosecutor. During the hearing, the court reviewed the investigation report along with the other materials that were presented on record. These records and reports formed the basis of the charges against the petitioner.

The case itself revolves around allegations that the petitioner was involved in serious violations under the Assam GST Act, 2017. Specifically, the petitioner had been served with a notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC by the Superintendent of State Tax, Assam. This notice was connected to the investigation under BI(E.O.) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021, which accused the petitioner of engaging in tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crores. This offense is deemed cognizable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, which relates to willful evasion of tax, where the evaded amount is more than Rs. 5 crores.

The prosecution’s case is that the petitioner was involved in deliberate tax evasion by supplying goods without issuing invoices, thereby violating the GST laws. This conduct resulted in a massive loss of revenue to the government, which led to his arrest and continued detention during the investigation.

Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017, under which the petitioner has been charged, prescribes severe penalties, including imprisonment, for those found guilty of tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crores. The prosecution further argued that the petitioner’s alleged conduct amounted to a deliberate and calculated scheme to evade taxes and that releasing him on bail might hinder the ongoing investigation or allow him to interfere with the evidence.

The court, in its deliberation, weighed the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, the progress of the investigation, and the legal framework within which the case was registered. The court is tasked with determining whether the petitioner’s prolonged detention is justified under the circumstances or whether he can be released on bail, subject to any conditions imposed by the court to ensure his availability for further proceedings and investigations.

Thus, the core issue before the court is whether the petitioner, Subhash Kumar Singh, should be granted bail in light of the serious allegations of tax evasion and the continued investigation by the tax authorities. The decision will likely take into account the risk of the petitioner fleeing, tampering with evidence, or otherwise hindering the investigation, balanced against his right to personal liberty and the time he has already spent in detention.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking bail for the accused-petitioner, Sri Subhash Kumar Singh, in connection with BI(E.O.) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021, registered under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act, 2017. The court heard the submissions of Dr. A.K. Saraf, senior counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Advocate Amit Goyal. Mr. M. Phukan, Public Prosecutor for Assam, represented the respondents (1 and 2).

The petitioner, Subhash Kumar Singh, was arrested on 12th July 2021 and has since been in detention in connection with the aforementioned case. The case originated when Singh was served with a notice under Section 50 of the CrPC by the Superintendent of State Tax Assam, BIEO, Srimantapur, Guwahati, in relation to alleged violations under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam GST Act (AGST Act). According to the authorities, Singh was involved in evading taxes and cess amounting to more than ₹5 crores by supplying goods without issuing invoices, in violation of the AGST Act, during the period of 2019 to 2021.

The investigation alleges that Singh deliberately avoided invoicing goods to evade taxes. The total evasion detected by the authorities, inclusive of applicable tax, cess, penalty, and interest, amounts to ₹22,77,13,211.04 (approximately ₹22.77 crores). This figure includes the evasion of tax and cess amounting to ₹10,22,31,514.18 (approximately ₹10.22 crores). As a result, Singh has been accused of committing an offense under Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act, which makes this offense cognizable.

 Arguments
During the hearing, Dr. Saraf submitted that on the day of Singh’s production before the court (12th July 2021), a bail petition was filed, but it was withdrawn on 16th July 2021. He further argued that the procedures outlined by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar  (2014) 8 SCC 273, particularly in light of the ongoing pandemic, have not been followed. He cited the direction in the In Re: Contagion of Covid 19 virus In Prisons* case, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 376, emphasizing that such guidelines were meant to be adhered to during the pandemic.

The court examined the investigation report and case records and noted the serious nature of the allegations, particularly in light of the substantial amount of tax evasion involved. However, the court also considered the argument made by the petitioner’s counsel regarding the need to follow the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for arrests and detention during the pandemic. Dr. Saraf stressed that Singh’s continued detention amid the pandemic posed risks and that he should be released on bail pending the conclusion of the investigation or trial.

The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds that the alleged tax evasion, although serious, did not warrant indefinite detention, especially when the offense is punishable under a law that allows for discretion in granting bail. Furthermore, it was argued that there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with evidence or fleeing, as his cooperation with the investigation has been established. In summary, the petition seeks bail for Subhash Kumar Singh in a case involving serious allegations of tax evasion amounting to more than ₹22 crores. The petitioner has been in custody since July 2021, and the bail application argues that the procedural guidelines established by the Supreme Court, particularly during the pandemic, should be followed. The case hinges on the court’s assessment of the gravity of the tax evasion offense and the application of legal principles surrounding arrest and detention during a public health crisis.

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on behalf of Subhash Kumar Singh, seeking his release in connection with the case BI(E.O.) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021. The case involves charges under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act (AGST Act), 2017, where the petitioner is accused of evading taxes amounting to more than ₹22 crores. Singh has been in judicial custody since his arrest on July 12, 2021. The following are the detailed arguments, circumstances, and legal principles surrounding the application.

Background of the Case:
Subhash Kumar Singh is accused of engaging in large-scale tax evasion between 2019 and 2021, during which he allegedly supplied goods without issuing proper invoices. This violation of the AGST Act resulted in an estimated tax and cess evasion of over ₹10 crores. The total liability, including penalties and interest, was calculated at ₹22.77 crores. Singh was arrested following a notice under Section 50 of the CrPC by the Superintendent of State Tax, Assam, and has been in custody since July 12, 2021.

Legal Submissions by Petitioner:
Dr. A.K. Saraf, senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that Singh’s continued detention during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is unwarranted and poses unnecessary health risks. Dr. Saraf highlighted that proper procedures laid down by the Supreme Court in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2014) 8 SCC 273, regarding arrests and detentions, were not adhered to either by the arresting authorities or by the lower court when remanding Singh to judicial custody. The counsel emphasized that during the pandemic, these procedures should be strictly followed, especially considering the Supreme Court’s directions in *In re: Contagion of Covid-19 virus in prisons* (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020), where the Court called for decongesting prisons to prevent the spread of the virus.

Reference to Supreme Court Guidelines:
In support of the bail application, Dr. Saraf referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the *Arnesh Kumar* case, which restricted the arrest of individuals in cases where the alleged offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act, under which Singh is charged, carries a maximum punishment of seven years. The guidelines established in *Arnesh Kumar* require police officers to avoid unnecessary arrests and mandate that magistrates not authorize detention without proper scrutiny and satisfaction based on the forwarding report provided by the police.

Dr. Saraf argued that the authorities did not comply with these guidelines when arresting Singh and that his prolonged detention is excessive, particularly in light of the ongoing pandemic and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to control the spread of COVID-19 in prisons.

Pandemic Considerations:
The bail plea also relied heavily on the ongoing public health crisis caused by COVID-19. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Singh’s detention should be re-evaluated in light of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 7, 2021, in the *Suo Motu Writ Petition* concerning the COVID-19 contagion in prisons. In this order, the Apex Court urged authorities to limit arrests in order to prevent overcrowding in jails. The Court also directed State Governments and Union Territories to establish High Powered Committees (HPCs) to review cases and consider releasing prisoners, especially those detained for offenses carrying punishments of less than seven years, similar to the petitioner’s case.

Dr. Saraf underscored that Singh, being held for a non-violent offense under a tax law, falls within the category of individuals who could be released on bail to reduce prison congestion and limit the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Furthermore, Singh has cooperated with the authorities and there is no likelihood of him tampering with evidence or fleeing.

 Public Prosecutor’s Submissions:
Mr. M. Phukan, Public Prosecutor for Assam, concurred with the petitioner’s argument regarding the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the *Arnesh Kumar* case and the need to adhere to the directions of the Court during the pandemic. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s May 7, 2021, order in the *Suo Motu* writ petition on COVID-19, which advocated for prison decongestion and controlled arrests. However, he emphasized that the seriousness of the offense and the large amount of tax evasion should not be overlooked.

 Court’s Consideration:
The court examined the investigation report and case records, considering both the allegations of significant tax evasion and the pandemic-related guidelines issued by the Supreme Court. The court took into account the procedural lapses alleged by the petitioner’s counsel regarding Singh’s arrest and the magistrate’s decision to remand him to judicial custody without fully adhering to the *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines.

In determining whether to grant bail, the court must balance the seriousness of the financial offense against the health risks posed by the ongoing pandemic and the potential overreach in Singh’s continued detention. The arguments made by the petitioner’s counsel advocate for a more lenient approach, particularly in light of the pandemic, while the prosecution underscores the gravity of the charges.

This is a bail application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) on behalf of Subhash Kumar Singh, seeking his release in connection with the case BI(E.O.) Assam Tax P.E. No. 03(03)/2021. The case involves charges under Section 132(1)(i) of the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act (AGST Act), 2017, where the petitioner is accused of evading taxes amounting to more than ₹22 crores. Singh has been in judicial custody since his arrest on July 12, 2021. The following are the detailed arguments, circumstances, and legal principles surrounding the application.

 Background of the Case:
Subhash Kumar Singh is accused of engaging in large-scale tax evasion between 2019 and 2021, during which he allegedly supplied goods without issuing proper invoices. This violation of the AGST Act resulted in an estimated tax and cess evasion of over ₹10 crores. The total liability, including penalties and interest, was calculated at ₹22.77 crores. Singh was arrested following a notice under Section 50 of the CrPC by the Superintendent of State Tax, Assam, and has been in custody since July 12, 2021.

 Legal Submissions by Petitioner:
Dr. A.K. Saraf, senior counsel for the petitioner, contended that Singh’s continued detention during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is unwarranted and poses unnecessary health risks. Dr. Saraf highlighted that proper procedures laid down by the Supreme Court in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar* (2014) 8 SCC 273, regarding arrests and detentions, were not adhered to either by the arresting authorities or by the lower court when remanding Singh to judicial custody. The counsel emphasized that during the pandemic, these procedures should be strictly followed, especially considering the Supreme Court’s directions in *In re: Contagion of Covid-19 virus in prisons* (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020), where the Court called for decongesting prisons to prevent the spread of the virus.

 Reference to Supreme Court Guidelines:
In support of the bail application, Dr. Saraf referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in the *Arnesh Kumar* case, which restricted the arrest of individuals in cases where the alleged offense is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years. Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act, under which Singh is charged, carries a maximum punishment of seven years. The guidelines established in *Arnesh Kumar* require police officers to avoid unnecessary arrests and mandate that magistrates not authorize detention without proper scrutiny and satisfaction based on the forwarding report provided by the police.

Dr. Saraf argued that the authorities did not comply with these guidelines when arresting Singh and that his prolonged detention is excessive, particularly in light of the ongoing pandemic and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to control the spread of COVID-19 in prisons.

 Pandemic Considerations:
The bail plea also relied heavily on the ongoing public health crisis caused by COVID-19. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Singh’s detention should be re-evaluated in light of the Supreme Court’s order dated May 7, 2021, in the *Suo Motu Writ Petition* concerning the COVID-19 contagion in prisons. In this order, the Apex Court urged authorities to limit arrests in order to prevent overcrowding in jails. The Court also directed State Governments and Union Territories to establish High Powered Committees (HPCs) to review cases and consider releasing prisoners, especially those detained for offenses carrying punishments of less than seven years, similar to the petitioner’s case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law