Case Law Details
Saurabh Jindal & Yashik Jindal Vs Union Of India (Rajasthan High Court)
In a significant legal development, the Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Saurabh Jindal and Yashik Jindal in connection with a case involving an alleged GST fraud amounting to Rs. 11.30 crores. The bail applications were filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arising from Case File No. DGGI/NV/GST/808/2022-GR-E of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit.
Defense Argument: The counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Saurabh Jindal and Yashik Jindal had been falsely implicated in the case and had been in custody since September 14, 2022. It was asserted that the petitioners had not created fake firms and that the main accused, Dipanshu Gupta, had been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court. The defense highlighted the compoundable nature of the offense, its triability by a Magistrate, and the potential delays in concluding the trial.
Prosecution’s Opposition: In opposition to the bail applications, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners, as Directors and Proprietors of Krishna Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Grand Design, were responsible for tax evasion amounting to Rs. 11.30 crores. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the charges and distinguished the case from that of Dipanshu Gupta, stating that the latter had received only commission. Reference was made to judicial precedents, including the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, where the Supreme Court had mandated a deposit of Rs. 200 crores for granting bail in a similar economic offense case.
Judicial Decision: After considering the arguments from both sides and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Rajasthan High Court deemed it just and proper to grant bail to Saurabh Jindal and Yashik Jindal. However, the Court imposed a condition requiring each petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crores before the respondent Department ‘under protest’.
Conditions of Bail: The Court ordered each petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Additionally, the trial court was directed to record the deposition of Rs. 2 crores from each petitioner before attesting their bail bonds.
Conclusion: The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in the Saurabh Jindal vs. Union of India case marks a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding GST fraud cases. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring a fair and equitable legal process while balancing the interests of justice with individual liberties. The case serves as a reminder of the nuanced approach required in adjudicating matters involving economic offenses and the imperative of upholding the rule of law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The present bail applications have been filed under Section439 Cr.P.C. arising out of Case File No. DGGI/NV/GST/808/2022-GR-E O/O ADG-DGGI-JZU-JAIPUR of Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for the Offence under Sections 132 (1) (c) (f) (h) & (1) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. They are behind the bars since 14.09.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that complaint has been filed against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners had not created fake firms. Main accused Dipanshu Gupta was enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, who had availed the input tax credit. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that offence against the petitioners is triable by Magistrate, compoundable and having maximum punishment of 5 years. Conclusion of trial may take long time. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no show cause notices have been given to the petitioners. So, petitioners be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Ratnambar Kaushik, Vs. Union Of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319/2022 decided on 05.12.2022; (2) Dananjay Singh Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (3) Suresh Jajra Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11477/2022 decided on 04.08.2022; (4) Kamal Chand Bothra Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8954/2022 decided on 01.07.2022; (5) Hardeep Singh Banga Vs. State Of U. P. reported in [2021] 131 taxmann.com 54 (Allahabad); (6) Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Vs. State of Karnataka reported in [2020] 117 taxmann.com 280 (Karnataka); (7) Ritik Arora Vs. Union Of India reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 59 (Rajasthan) and (8) Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka reported in [2019] 106 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are Director and Proprietor of Krishna Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and M/s Grand Design, New Delhi. They are responsible for tax evasion. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that petitioners had taken Rs.11.30 Crores as input tax credit. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that case of Dipanshu Gupta is not similar to the petitioners because Dipanshu Gupta received only commission. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, Hon’ble Apex Court had directed to him to deposit Rs.200 Crores for granting bail. So, if this court directs the petitioners to deposit loss of input tax credit of Rs.11.30 Crores, then, respondent shall not have objection for granting bail to the petitioners, unless the bail filed by the petitioners, be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. reported in 2019 (8) Supreme 732; (2) Vinay Kant Ameta Vs. Union Of India in Criminal Appeal No.60/2022[@ SLP [CRL.] No.9564/2021; (3) Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12475/2022 decided on 21.10.2022; (4) Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 0 Supreme (Raj.) 69; (5) Tarun Tyagi Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2423/2015 decided on 31.03.2015; (6) Sumit Dutta Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. 5th Bail Application No.12427/2022 decided on 29.09.2022; (7) Mahendra Mangal Vs. Union of India & Anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13041/2021 decided on 07.09.2021; (8) Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18243/2021 decided on 07.12.2021; (9) Ramchandra Vishnoi Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13104/2021 decided on 06.12.2021 and (10) Sohan Singh Rao Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2555/2022 decided on 24.03.2022.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is an admitted position that petitioners had evaded the tax and got the benefit of input tax credit of Rs.11.30 Crores. Hon’ble Apex Court while granting the bail to Vinay Kant Ameta directed to him to deposit Rs.200 Crores.
8. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail with a condition to deposit Rs.2 Crores each by the petitioners before the respondent Department as under protest.
9. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Saurabh Jindal S/o Shri Satyendra Kumar and Yashik Jindal S/o Shri Mahadev Jindal shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
10. Trial court is directed to take the receipt of deposition of Rs.2 Crores on record from each of them before attesting bail bonds.
11. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
Author Bio
