Case Law Details
CGST Vs. Sanyam Mittal (Patiala House Court)
On behalf of the department, It is submitted that accused availed fraudulent ITC of Rs. 12.82,05,579/- from various bogus firms and he accepted his fraud in his statement under section 70 of CGST Act on 06.03.2020 and also on 08.09.2020 where he confirmed that he purchased goodsless invoices from Tarun Verma only. It is submitted that summons dated 07.07.2020, 25.08.2020 and 08.09.2020 were issued to the applicant to provide certain document but he did not submit the record to the department and investigation of the beneficiaries of M/s Mittal Wire Company and M/s Bhuinika Metal LLP is still pending. Show cause notice will be issued after completion of investigation Also, accused submitted irrelevant documents to divert the investigation pretending to be bonafide person. None of the vendor / supplier firm of the accused is existent at this point of time and mere bank payment do not absolve the applicant from his liability and same cannot be construed as an evidence in his favour. The department could not examine him during the interim bail during Covid 19 and custody of the accused is required by the department to conclude the investigation in a fair manner.
In the given facts accused is in interim bail since 06.04.2020 and his custodial interrogation is required by the department for concluding the investigation. The department could not interrogate him post his release on interim bail due to Covid 19. the fact that accused has disobeyed the summons earlier and provided irrelevant material to the department indicate that he would jettison the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, in the interest of fair investigation. this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. The application is dismissed. The accused is to surrender forthwith.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Reply filed on behalf of the department. Copy supplied.
On behalf of accused surrender cum third regular bail application has been filed submitting that accused has been falsely involved in the present case by the department. The instant application has been filed as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 01.03.2021 has directed the UTPs admitted on interim bail owing to Covio-19 situation to surrender within 15 days from the date of order i.e. 01.03.2021. The second bail application was filed on 04.04.2020 which was adjourned to 11.04.2020 and same was disposed off without passing any order. The applicant was admitted to interim bail on 05.04.2020 in terms of directions of HPC of Hon’ble Delhi High Court order dated 07.04.2020. The applicant was released from Tihar Jail on 06.04.2020 and his previous applications were not adjudicated. li is submitted that conduct of the applicant during the period of interim bail has been satisfactory as he never violated any condition. It is submiiled that since the last six months, accused was not called by the department for any interrogation which indicate that investigation against him is completed. It is submitted that department neither issued any show cause notice nor filed any complaint before the Court. It is submitted that the master mind of this fiasco is Tarun Verma who is already wanted regular bail on 25.09.2020. Also, Manoj Gupta who is the beneficiary is also granted regular bail. The applicant is innocent and he has remitted the entire invoice to his vendors through proper banking channel. It is submitted that applicant has clean antecedents and family responsibilities as such he may release on bail subject to any condition.
On behalf of the department, It is submitted that accused availed fraudulent ITC of Rs. 12.82,05,579/- from various bogus firms and he accepted his fraud in his statement under section 70 of CGST Act on 06.03.2020 and also on 08.09.2020 where he confirmed that he purchased goodsless invoices from Tarun Verma only. It is submitted that summons dated 07.07.2020, 25.08.2020 and 08.09.2020 were issued to the applicant to provide certain document but he did not submit the record to the department and investigation of the beneficiaries of M/s Mittal Wire Company and M/s Bhuinika Metal LLP is still pending. Show cause notice will be issued after completion of investigation Also, accused submitted irrelevant documents to divert the investigation pretending to be bonafide person. None of the vendor / supplier firm of the accused is existent at this point of time and mere bank payment do not absolve the applicant from his liability and same cannot be construed as an evidence in his favour. The department could not examine him during the interim bail during Covid 19 and custody of the accused is required by the department to conclude the investigation in a fair manner.
Heard. Perused.
The grant of bail depends upon complex of facts and factors considered in the light of golden principles laid down from time to time by the higher Courts. In Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta Vs. CBI : (2012) 4 SCC 134 Hon’ble Apex Court held that … ‘The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a manor of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding whey bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence.
The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as:
a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;
b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to tlie complainant.
c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support with the charge.
In addition to the same, the court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from the justice and tampering with the prosecution witness, have to be noted
In Anil Mahalan Vs. Commissioner of Customs: (2000) 84 DLT 854 it was held that “there is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of such discretion by the Courts. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the mailer of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting of refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be teated as a universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail….. ”
In the given facts. accused is in interim bail since 06.04.2020 and his custodial interrogation is required by the department for concluding the investigation. The department could not interrogate him post his release on interim bail due to Covid 19. the fact that accused has disobeyed the summons earlier and provided irrelevant material to the department indicate that he would jettison the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, in the interest of fair investigation. this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. The application is dismissed. The accused is to surrender forthwith.
Copy of the order be given dasti to Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
