Case Law Details
Jagdish Arora and another Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh HC)
In the instant case, the petition is filed for obtaining bail against in respect of the offence punishable under Section 132(1)(a) read with section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
HC state that the parties at length and bestowed our anxious consideration on their respective arguments advanced. The record was also produced by the respondent in a sealed. HC have gone through the record in order to ascertain the existence of “reasons to believe” for the proceedings being initiated against the applicants. HC do not perceive any material, except the statement of the employee. There is no documentary material produced on record to show that the present applicants were legally in charge and responsible for the day-to-day working of the Company. They had already resigned legally from the Directorship of the Company. Merely on a bald statement of an employee of the Company, it cannot be held that the present applicants were in charge and responsible for the functions of the Company.
On a careful consideration of nature and gravity of the allegations made against the applicants and the specific evidence collected in respect of the allegations levelled, elaborate discussion of which would not be apt, as it may adversely affect the interest of either party, the specific facts put forth by the learned senior counsel for the applicants and the reply and other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case for granting bail is made out. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application for grant of bail to the applicants stands allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
