Sagar Dilip More vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The primary reason for allowing the bail was the non-compliance with Section 132(6) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, which requires the previous sanction of the Commissioner for prosecuting an individual for offences under Section 132. The Court noted that admittedly, there was no such previous sanction, making the prosecution for the GST offences unsustainable. Additionally, the Court observed a glaring anomaly regarding the alleged forgery of the applicant's signatures on documents used to open the bank account, as indicated by a comparison with his original PAN card. The Court also found it surprising that a retired bank official who opened the account was a witness rather than a co-accused. Furthermore, the Court considered the admissions made by a prosecution witness during cross-examination, which prima facie suggested a lack of concrete material against the applicant. The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond and surety, with a direction to attend all trial dates. The Court expressly left undecided any issues related to the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Facts

The applicant, Sagar Dilip More, sought bail in a case registered under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(e), (f), (l), (i), (ii), (iv) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the applicant opened a GST account in the name of M/s. Predict Enterprises using fake documents, including his PAN and Aadhar card, leading to an alleged fraudulent claim of Rs. 74,76,480/- towards GST returns. The first informant was an Assistant State Commissioner in GST. The applicant claimed his PAN and Aadhar were misused by an individual named Irfan, who had promised him employment. The applicant also highlighted alleged forgery of his signatures on documents and a lack of proper verification by a bank official. The trial had commenced, and evidence of one witness had been recorded, during which the witness allegedly gave admissions favouring the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the prosecution for offences under Section 132(1)(e), (f), (l), (i), (ii), (iv) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, is vitiated by non-compliance with Section 132(6) of the Act, which mandates previous sanction of the Commissioner for prosecution? The petitioner argued that there was no previous sanction from the Commissioner, rendering the prosecution for the said GST offences invalid. The petitioner also contended that the investigation was flawed, with alleged forgery of his signatures and a lack of proper verification by bank officials. The petitioner further pointed out that the GST returns were not filed with the charge sheet and that the investigating officer, Balaji Narhare, who was the complainant, was not listed as a witness. The petitioner also highlighted that a key witness gave admissions during cross-examination that supported the petitioner's defence, and that the applicant had been in custody for over two years. The respondent (State) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.