Case Law Details
Shri Rameshchandra Tulsidas Agarwal Vs Rahul Sihag, Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise (Session Court, Valsad at Vapi)
[1] Vide this order this Court is deciding the regular bail application of the applicant-accused. He was arrested on 25.11.2021, u/s. 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, he was produced before the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi and he is in judicial custody from 26.11.2021.
[2] Notice of this application has been issued to the Ld. Special P.P. as well as to the arresting officer.
[3] As per the arrest memo the following allegations against the applicant-accused as under; “Shri Rameshchandra Tulsidas Agarwal was summoned to give his statement under section 70 of CGST Act-2017. Heappeared before the Superintendent [HPIU-C] on 25.11.2021 for giving his statement. Accordingly, his statement was recorded on 25.11.2021 wherein he inter-alia stated that he did not know anything about Sh. Murshid Alam Habibur Rehman Saiyad, proprietor of M/s. Decent Steel (GSTIN : 24HWKPS5235L3ZT); he did not know anything about Sh. Mohamedmusa Mohamadkasim Ansari, properitor of M/s. Global Traders (GSTIN : 24AHKPA0609C1Z6) he come in contact with Shri Alambhai, whose full name and whereabouts are not known to me. His mobile number is 9726638338. He had met Shri Alambhai at a function at the premises of Shri Hasmukhbhai properietor of M/s. Jalaram Scrap Traders, Surat. He had negotiated with Shri Alambhai regarding the trading with M/s. Decent Steels & M/s. Global Traders; the firm i.e. M/s. Decent Steels (GSTIN: 24HWKPS5235L3ZT) was not found functional at Plot No. B-145, New India Market, Near Dinesh Mill, Bhadkodara, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Gujarat, 393001; he confirmed that the firm i.e. M/s. Global Traders (GSTIN: 24AHKPA0609C1Z6) was not found functional at P-Plot No. F-825, Laxmi Textile Park, Sachin GIDC, Sachin, Surat, Gujarat, 394520; he agreed that the ITC was fraudulently passed by M/s. One Ten Steels, M/s. Prime Metals, M/s. Magnus Metals, M/s. Crystal Metals and M/s. R J Traders and utilized by his firm M/s. Manish Scrap Traders towards their outward tax liabilities; he availed ITC amounting to Rs. 5,97,75,230/- from M/s. One Ten Steels, M/s. Prime Metals, M/s. Magnus Metals, M/s. Crystal Metals, M/s. R J Traders, M/s. Decent Steels & M/s. Global Traders; he agreed that the ITC amounting to Rs. 5,97, 75, 230/- which was fraudulently passed by the said 07 firms and utilized by his firm M/s. Manish Scrap Traders towards their outward tax. On the basis of evidence collected so far, it is strongly believed that some more availment of fradulent ITC from non-existent firms and further utilization of fraudulently accumulated ITC may be involved. The existing evidences show availment and utilization of fraudulent ITC which is more likely to increase once futher investigation is carried out and all factors are unearthed. Further, in the statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, Shri Rameshchandra Tulsidas Agarwal also admitted that: The ITC amounting to Rs. 5,97,75,230/- was fraudulently passed by M/s. One Ten Steels, M/s. Prime Metals, M/s. Magnus Metals, M/s. Crystal Metals, M/s. R J Traders, M/s. Decent Steels & M/s. Global Traders and utilized by his firm M/s. Manish Scrap Traders for discharging their output tax liability”.
[4] Ld. Counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the accused is aged about 67 years, and having various serious elements. He further argued that the allegations against the applicant-accused are that he receiving the bogus bills without any goods. He further argued that he is ready to co-operate with the investigation. He further argued that there is no useful purpose would be serve to keep the applicant / accused behind bars because trail will take long time and prayed for bail.
[5] On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opponent Mr. A.A. Shaikh vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that the accused was arrested on the basis of his own confession dated 25.11.2021.He further argued that the said confession is admissible in evidence because the officers of the department are not the police officer. He further argued that the confession of the applicant-accused was recorded without any influence or coercion.
He further argued that the allegations against the applicant-accused are serious in nature. He further argued that the act of the accused would adversely impact economic of the country. He further argued that the judgment of Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI shall not apply in this case because in that case, bail application was granted after filling of the charge-sheet. Ld. Counsel put reliance on following judgment;
1. Paresh Nathalal Chauhan V/s. State of Gujarat, Cri.Misc.Application No. 6237 of 2020, High Court of Gujarat.
2. Vikas Goel V/s. Central Goods & Services Tax Commissionerate,, Gurugram 2018 Supreme ( P & H) 4678.
3. Amit Beriwal V/s. State of Odisha, 2020 0 Supreme ( Ori) 100.
4. Satender Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. 2021 0 SC 603.
This court perused the ratio laid down in the judgment (Supra) but facts are distinguishable hence, not helpful to the complainant.
[6] It was held by the Apex Court in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation AIR 2012 SC 830 that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Further, refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal of individual guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
[7] This Court observed that the offences is punishable up to 5 years, compoundable and triable by Court of Magistrate. Admittedly, the complaint against the applicant-accused is yet to be filed. Further, the allegations against the applicant-accused are yet to be established during the trial and trial will take long time. Thus, seeing the quantum of sentence accused is likely to face, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, the liberty of an individual being involved, the period of custody of the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant / accused is entitled for concession of regular bail in this case. Therefore, this court passes the following order:
:: ORDER ::
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1404 of 2021, is hereby allowed. The applicant namely, SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA TULSIDAS AGARWAL is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F No. XIV/516-28/2020 for the offence punishable U/s. 132(1)(B) & C of the CGST Act, 2017 on furnishing personal bond of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with one surety like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court/ Illaqua Magistrate/concern court;
2. The observations recorded by this court, in this order, shall not effect the merit of the case.
3. The release of the accused is further subject to conditions as under:-
:: CONDITIONS ::
1. That he shall not indulge in any similar offence during trial.
2. That he shall not temper with evidence in any manner.
3. That in case he changes his residential address, he will communicate the same to the Ld. trial court and investigating officer immediately.
4. That he shall regularly appear before the Ld. trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
5. That he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Ld. Trial Court.
6. Yadi be sent to concerned court/police station.
Signed & Pronounced in Open Court to-day on this 6th day of December, 2021.
