Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya@Golu Bagpatiya S/O Late Bhupendra Bagpatiya vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and deemed it proper to allow the bail application. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's arguments regarding the stage of proceedings (charge-sheet filed), the petitioner's limited involvement in the firms, the alleged lack of proper assessment and evidence of fake invoices, and the argument that the amount in dispute, when considering potential discrepancies, might fall within the threshold for a bailable offense under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, especially given the maximum sentence of five years. The Court directed that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the condition to appear on all subsequent dates of hearing. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Rajasthan High Court. The case was registered at the CGST Commissionarate, Alwar, for an alleged offense under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since December 3, 2020. The complaint alleges wrongful claim of GST amounting to Rs. 7.09 crore. The dispute involves four firms, with the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s GS Udhyog and a partner in M/s Shiv Shanker. The petitioner's counsel argued that the assessment was not done properly and there was no statement confirming fake invoices. It was also contended that e-way bills were issued, and any discrepancy in HSN codes would not exceed Rs. 5 crore, making the offense bailable as the maximum sentence is five years.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the amount in dispute and the stage of the proceedings? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and principles of bail). Petitioner's Arguments: The charge-sheet has been filed, and the petitioner is in custody since December 3, 2020. The dispute involves four firms, and the petitioner is only directly involved in two. The assessment has not been properly conducted, and there is no specific statement regarding fake invoices. E-way bills were issued, and any potential discrepancy in HSN codes would not exceed Rs. 5 crore. Given that the maximum sentence under the Act is five years, and the alleged amount is less than Rs. 5 crore, the offense should be considered bailable. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: The petitioner is accused of creating fake invoices without any actual supply of goods, thereby wrongly claiming GST to the tune of Rs. 7.09 crore.