Aditya Jain vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the suggestion made by the learned standing counsel for the GST, to relax the condition of appearing before the Investigating Officer once in a week to once in a month for the next three months, and thereafter as and when required, was fair and reasonable. The Court reasoned that this modification would balance the petitioner's personal circumstances and the need for the investigation to be completed fairly. The Court modified the impugned bail condition accordingly. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Aditya Jain, filed a criminal revision petition before the Gauhati High Court seeking modification of a bail condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. The bail was granted in Case No. DGCI/INV/FUP/51/2023 under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The condition under challenge required the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once every seven days. The petitioner argued that he had already appeared over 22 times and cooperated with the investigation. He further submitted that his wife is undergoing IVF treatment, necessitating his presence in Kolkata, and the frequent travel to Guwahati for appearances was causing him hardship. The respondent, Union of India through the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, had no objection to relaxation but emphasized the ongoing nature of the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the bail condition requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer once every seven days, imposed under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, should be modified, considering the petitioner's compliance and personal circumstances? The petitioner contended that he had diligently complied with the bail condition by appearing before the Investigating Officer more than 22 times and cooperating fully with the investigation. He highlighted the hardship caused by frequent travel from Kolkata to Guwahati for these appearances, especially in light of his wife's ongoing IVF treatment, which requires his presence. The petitioner sought a relaxation of the reporting frequency. The respondent (GST) stated they had no objection to relaxing the reporting condition but stressed that the investigation was not yet complete and the petitioner's interrogation might still be necessary. They suggested a modification to appearing once a month for a limited period, followed by appearances as and when required.