Case Law Details
Nitin Verma Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Conclusion: Where the implication of a person was for a non-bailable offence, he could apply for anticipatory bail. If the applicant cooperated with the inquiry, there was no requirement of his arrest. Assessee was having his own address of residence and business. He could give surety ensuring his appearance. Therefore, he deserved to be granted limited protection for the purpose of conclusion of inquiry by the Proper Officer. Thus, Allahabad High Court granted the anticipatory bail to a person alleged of GST evasion to the tune of Rs.100 Crores.
Held: Assessee-individual had filed anticipatory bail application with reference to summon issued by Superintendent (A.E.) CGST and Central Excise, Agra under section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 during the pendency of the case before the CGST and Central Excise, Agra. CGST Department, had vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant for grant of anticipatory bail. He had submitted that in the instant case, GST evasion of more than Rs. 100 crores was involved. It was a cognizable and non-bailable offence as per Section 132 (1) (i) of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Section 132 (5) of the CGST Act. During search of assessee’s premises, number of incriminating documents were recovered which prove his involvement in GST evasion of more than 100 crores. Hence, notice u/s 70 of the CGST Act was issued to assessee. The inquiry was still in progress and 111 fake firms, had been found and bogus invoices numbering 373 had been recovered. Assessee was the mastermind of the entire fraud. The goods were sold on paper only without any actual production or supply. It was held that under Section 438 Cr.P.C., where the implication of a person is for a non-bailable offence, he can apply for anticipatory bail. If the applicant cooperates with the inquiry, there is no requirement of his arrest. The applicant is having his own address of residence and business. He can give surety ensuring his appearance. He does not appears to be habitual offender, prosecuted or convicted earlier. Therefore, he deserves to be granted limited protection for the purpose of conclusion of inquiry by the Proper Officer. Assessee should make himself available for interrogation by the proper officer as and when required; he should not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any officer; he should not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same should be deposited by him before the proper officer concerned; the party should file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad; the concerned Authority/Official should verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of Allahabad High Court and should make a declaration of such verification in writing; in case assessee failed to appear on any date fixed by the Proper Officer under the CGST Act, for any reason whatsoever, this anticipatory bail application should stand automatically rejected and the protection given to assessee would cease to have any effect.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. Heard Sri Kaustubh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
