Subhash Chander vs. State Of Haryana
Held
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the petitioner's age of 55 years, the period of custody of approximately 8 months, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and the likelihood that the conclusion of the trial would take some time. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on humanitarian grounds and the procedural delays anticipated in the trial, rather than a definitive finding on the bailability of the offence under Section 132 of the SGST & CGST Act, 2017. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on regular bail upon furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate.
Facts
The petitioner, Subhash Chander, is seeking regular bail in FIR No. 104 dated June 18, 2020, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, with Section 132 of the SGST & CGST Act, 2017, added later. The FIR was registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. The petitioner is alleged to have claimed input tax credit on bogus sales, causing a loss of approximately 49 lakh to the government exchequer. The petitioner is 55 years old and has been in custody for approximately 8 months. The challan has been filed, but charges are yet to be framed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 132 of the SGST & CGST Act, 2017, considering the alleged tax liability is below 5 crores, making the offence bailable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the offence is bailable as the tax liability is below 5 crores, as stipulated in the Act. He also highlighted his age (55 years) and the period of custody (almost 8 months) as grounds for bail. The petitioner's counsel relied on the fact that the offence is bailable under the Act if the tax liability is below 5 crores. Respondent's (State of Haryana) Arguments: The State counsel stated that the petitioner has been in custody for 7 months and 21 days and that the challan has been filed, but charges are yet to be framed. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions/precedents were recorded for the State.
Sections Cited
Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
245
CRM-M-44514-2021 DATE OF DECISION: 07.12.2021 SUBHASH CHANDER
… Petitioner(s)
Versus STATE OF HARYANA
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana.
**** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.104 dated 18.06.2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, (Section 132 of the SGST & CGST Act, 2017 added later on in the final investigation report/challan), registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged that the petitioner had claimed input tax credit on bogus sales. He further contends that the petitioner has allegedly caused a loss of about 49 lakh approximately to the Government exchequer under Section 132 of the SGST & CGST Act, 2017. It is stipulated in the Act that if the tax liability is below 5 crores, the offence is bailable. The petitioner is 55 year of age and he is in custody for
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.