Yashik Jindal S/O Shri Mahadev Jindal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged the admitted position that the petitioners had evaded tax and obtained input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 11.30 Crores. The Court also took note of the Supreme Court's direction in the case of Vinay Kant Ameta, where bail was granted upon deposit of Rs. 200 Crores. Considering the arguments presented by both sides and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. However, this was made conditional upon each petitioner depositing Rs. 2 Crores with the respondent Department, to be paid as under protest. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The bail applications were allowed, with directions for the petitioners to furnish personal bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge, and the trial court was directed to take the receipt of the deposit before attesting the bail bonds.

Facts

The petitioners, Saurabh Jindal and Yashik Jindal, are seeking bail in connection with a case registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur. They have been in custody since September 14, 2022. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, as Director and Proprietor of certain companies, are responsible for tax evasion and have availed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 11.30 Crores. The petitioners claim they have been falsely implicated, deny creating fake firms, and argue that the alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable, with a maximum punishment of 5 years. They also contend that no show cause notices were issued to them. The prosecution counters that the petitioners are responsible for tax evasion and that their case is distinct from that of another accused, Dipanshu Gupta, who allegedly only received commission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail given their alleged involvement in tax evasion and availing of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 11.30 Crores, considering the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contend they have been falsely implicated, that the offence is triable by a Magistrate and compoundable, and that the trial may take a long time. They also claim no show cause notices were issued and rely on several judgments, including Ratnambar Kaushik, Dananjay Singh, and Ritik Arora, for the proposition that bail should be granted. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argues that the petitioners are responsible for tax evasion and availed Rs. 11.30 Crores as ITC. They distinguish the petitioners' case from Dipanshu Gupta's and cite the Supreme Court's direction for Vinay Kant Ameta to deposit Rs. 200 Crores for bail, suggesting a similar condition for the petitioners. They rely on judgments such as Mahipal, Vinay Kant Ameta, and Rajesh Goyal.