Gopal Rawat S/O Shri Praveen vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik, the Court noted that while allegations and counter-allegations exist, it is not necessary to delve into the details at this stage as the matter is before the trial court. The Court considered that the alleged tax evasion, even if proven under Section 132(1)(l)(i), carries a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner had already undergone incarceration for over four months since May 2, 2025, and the trial was expected to take time. The Court also took into account that the evidence would likely be documentary and electronic, reducing the apprehension of tampering. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the case is exclusively triable by a Judicial Magistrate, the offence is compoundable up to Rs. 5 crore, a significant amount (Rs. 1,37,27,000/-) had been deposited, and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, deposit their passport, and appear before the trial court on all dates until the conclusion of the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Gopal Rawat, is seeking bail in a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 483 of BNSS. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) has alleged that the petitioner's firm, M/s VLR Corporation, issued goods-less invoices involving input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 7,19,68,871/- without any underlying supply of goods. This alleged activity occurred during the period of April 2018 to March 2025, benefiting 48 other firms. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since May 2, 2025, and a complaint/charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner claims to have falsely implicated and that a portion of the alleged ITC, amounting to Rs. 1,37,27,000/-, has been deposited.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail given the nature of the economic offence alleged under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the offence is bailable and compoundable up to Rs. 5 crore under Section 138 of the relevant Act, with a maximum punishment of five years, and is exclusively triable by a Judicial Magistrate. They argue that they have a right to appeal the tax determination. The petitioner highlights that Rs. 1,37,27,000/- has been deposited, they have no criminal antecedents, and the trial will take considerable time. Several judgments are cited in support, including Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India and Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (DGGI) vehemently opposes the bail application, arguing that the petitioner is involved in an economic offence that affects the country's economic fabric and should be dealt with strictly. They cite judgments such as State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley and State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal to support their stance.