Rajasthan High Court: Narendra Singh Dhaddha rejected bail and dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code i.e. Cr.P.C. relating to offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(A), (F),(H),(I),(L) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 i.e. CGST Act.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in initial complaint, allegation was against the Vinaykant Ameta not against the petitioner and the respondent’s department does not have adequate data for evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crores. It was further submitted that the case against the petitioner is on surmises and conjectures and that the maximum punishment in this case is 5 years and case against the petitioner is triable by Magistrate. It was further submitted that offence against the petitioner is compoundable and the provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not applicable in this case and Department had not taken leave from concerned Court for further investigation. Hence, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
Counsel for respondent submitted that the petitioner and Vinay Kant Ameta were working as Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited and is responsible for the tax evasion. It was further submitted that as per Investigation, total tax evasion of Rs.869 Crores wherein M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had created the fake firm for tax evasion. It was also brought forth that the Supreme Court granted the bail of Vinay Kant Ameta on depositing of Rs.200 crores and if the petitioner is ready to deposit evasion of tax with penalty then he has no objection in granting the bail. However it was submitted that department had summoned the various persons of the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited Group for investigation but they had not turned up for investigation till today. So, on account of gravity of offence, bail be dismissed.
The Court observed that the petitioner and Vinaykant Ameta were Director in M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. As per the prosecution story, they had evaded tax of Rs. 869 Crores. GST department had seized one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. The Supreme Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy.
The Court thus held “in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.”[Sohan Singh Rao v. Union of India, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2555/2022, decided on 24-03-2022]
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Senior Adv. With Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. & Mr. Snehdeep Khyaliya, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Kinshuk Jain for DGGI
