Navneet Singh Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (GST) (Patiala House Court)
In the present case, the allegations against the accused company are that they had collected the CGST from the clients of the company to the tune of 24.96 crores and not deposited the same with the government, thus committed offense u/s 132 CGST Act which is the non-bailable offense. Merely depositing of 7.7 crores does not in any manner drop the offense in the bailable category. As far as the allegations against the present accused are concerned, he is the director of the company who is also responsible for the affairs of the company, and the matter is yet to be investigated by him. The huge economic loss to the exchequer is caused and this practice appears writ large in the business community. P&H High Court in Vikas Goel Vs DDGST, 2019 (18) GSTL 590 = 2019 (8) TMI 166 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT found the offense of using bogus billing adjusting the amount without any actual transportation to the tune of 80 crores is very serious thus not inclined to release the accused even on regular bail. The Apex court also upheld the judgment of P.V. Ramanna reddy case passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana as the offense as committed u/s 132 not dependent upon adjudication proceedings. Merely on the basis of the fact that the department has the power to arrest no apprehension can be inferred at this stage when the department admittedly saying that they have not even thought of arresting the accused. The co-accused is still in custody and has not released on bail. The bonafide of the department cannot be doubted at this stage. Therefore, the present application of anticipatory bail is dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATIALA HIGH COURT
