Manoj Goyal vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that there was prima facie evidence indicating the petitioner's involvement in running M/s Purbanchal Minerals, obtaining its GST registration in the name of Dulu Deb. The petitioner allegedly purchased coal from seven firms using fake invoices and e-way bills, evading approximately Rs. 62,01,655/- in GST. Evidence of concealment of relevant documents and illegal digital money transfers through different bank accounts has surfaced. The Court was of the opinion that granting pre-arrest bail would likely adversely affect the ongoing investigation. Consequently, the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail was rejected. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Goyal, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with BI(EO) P.S. Case No.4/2023, registered under Sections 120B/468/471/420 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax against Dulu Deb, proprietor of M/s Purbanchal Minerals, for wrongful claim of tax credit and fake bill trading. The petitioner is alleged to be an employee of M/s Purbanchal Minerals, though the State contends he is the de facto proprietor. The alleged offences involve illegal coal trade using fake GST invoices and e-way bills, causing an approximate loss of Rs. 62,01,655/- in GST to the government. The investigation is ongoing, with various documents yet to be seized.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the allegations of his involvement in illegal coal trade and GST evasion? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was merely an employee of M/s Purbanchal Minerals and thus lacked the access to commit the alleged offences. He expressed readiness to cooperate with the investigation if granted pre-arrest bail. Revenue's Contention: The State argued that the petitioner is the de facto proprietor of M/s Purbanchal Minerals and has been running an illegal coal trade using fake GST invoices and e-way bills, causing a significant loss of GST. They contended that granting pre-arrest bail would hamper the ongoing investigation, as crucial documents are yet to be seized. The State also highlighted that Dulu Deb admitted to working with the petitioner, who financed the coal business, supported by monetary transactions between their bank accounts. The State further pointed out that the business premises were too small to handle the volume of goods allegedly traded.