Lalit Goyal S/O Shri Kunj Bihari vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. While the petitioner argued for bail based on alleged false implication, length of incarceration, nature of the offence (triable by Magistrate, compoundable, maximum 5 years punishment), potential delay in trial, and lack of show cause notices, the respondent highlighted the seriousness of the alleged offence. Specifically, the respondent pointed to the claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 18.91 Crores without goods transportation, and a total ITC claim by the petitioner and co-accused running into thousands of Crores, with the investigation still pending. After considering these points and the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court found it was not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court dismissed the bail application.

Facts

The petitioner, Lalit Goyal, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The application arose from a case initiated by the Office of the Commissioner, CGST Jaipur (PS) under File No. IV(06)115/AE/JPR/2020 for alleged offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated, had been incarcerated for a significant period, and that the offence was triable by a Magistrate, compoundable, with a maximum punishment of 5 years. He also argued that the conclusion of the trial would be lengthy and that no show cause notices were issued. The respondent (CGST Department) opposed bail, stating that the petitioner and others had claimed input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 18.91 Crores without actual transportation of goods, and the total ITC claimed by the petitioner and co-accused amounted to thousands of Crores. The investigation was also stated to be pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the alleged offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner has been falsely implicated. - He has been in custody for a considerable period. - The alleged offence is triable by a Magistrate, is compoundable, and carries a maximum punishment of 5 years. - The trial is likely to take a long time to conclude. - No show cause notices were issued to the petitioner. Respondent's Arguments: - The petitioner and others allegedly claimed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 18.91 Crores without any transportation of goods. - The total ITC claimed by the petitioner and co-accused runs into thousands of Crores. - The investigation against the petitioner is still pending.