Amitkumar Hasmukhlal Takkar vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court allowed the application for regular bail. The Court considered that the applicants were running a brokerage agency and were alleged to have generated purchase orders for out-of-State commodities that were disposed of in the gray market without GST assessment. The investigating agency found the agency involved in creating fake purchase orders using seals and letterheads of various companies. The Court noted that the provisions of the GST Act were sufficient for assessment and recovery of revenue. Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, and without discussing the evidence in detail, the Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case to exercise discretion and enlarge the applicants on bail. The Court relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. The applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not acting prejudicially to the prosecution, surrendering passports, not leaving India without permission, staying out of Gujarat for six months while remaining available to the investigating agency, marking presence at the police station, and not changing residence without permission. The trial court was cautioned not to be influenced by the preliminary observations made by the High Court.

Facts

The applicants, Amitkumar Hasmukhlal Takkar and two others, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for regular bail. The bail was sought in connection with an order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Himmatnagar, for an alleged offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017. The applicants' counsel submitted that they had cooperated with the investigation, produced all firm records, and no further investigation was pending. They also contended that their brokerage firm was liable only for service tax, which had been regularly paid, and that the maximum sentence for the offence was five years. The respondent-State opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offence, transactions worth over Rs. 400 crores involving more than 98 companies, and the filing of a complaint under the GST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence under Section 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that they had cooperated with the investigation, produced all relevant records, and no further investigation was pending. They also submitted that their firm was liable only for service tax, which was paid, and that the maximum sentence was five years, suggesting that continued detention was not necessary. The petitioner relied on the principle laid down in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, [2012]1 SCC 40, for the grant of bail. The respondent-State opposed the bail, highlighting the widespread nature and magnitude of the offence, involving transactions worth over Rs. 400 crores and more than 98 companies. They contended that the investigation was complicated, prima facie evidence existed against the applicants, and a complaint had already been filed under the GST Act.