Rohit Kumar Goyal vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court confirmed the interim regular bail granted to the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that no revenue loss had been caused to the State Exchequer and that the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, was under challenge. The Court also noted that no complaint had been filed and no show cause notice had been issued under the CGST Act. The petitioner had been in custody for 55 days (from November 27, 2020, to January 18, 2021). While the respondent stated that the investigation was ongoing and the petitioner's presence was required, they also conceded that the petitioner had joined the investigation and provided full cooperation. The Court found it just and appropriate to confirm the interim bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds. The petitioner was directed to continue joining the investigation as and when required upon written notice from the Investigation Officer. The Court explicitly stated that nothing expressed in the judgment should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar Goyal, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central GST Act, 2017, read with Section 20(XV) of the Integrated GST Act, 2017. The respondent is the Director General of GST Intelligence. The petitioner argued that no complaint had been filed, no FIR was registered, and no revenue loss had occurred. He also pointed to pending challenges to the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, and cited previous High Court orders granting bail in similar cases. The petitioner had been in custody since November 27, 2020. The respondent contended that the petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and that the earlier bail orders cited were distinguishable due to custody periods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the allegations under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 20(XV) of the IGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: - No complaint has been filed, nor has any FIR been registered. - No loss of revenue to the State Exchequer has been caused. - The constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, is under challenge before this Court in CWP-8268-2020. - Previous orders in CRM-M-42451-2019 (Mitha Ram) and CRM-M-27425-2020 (Ganga Ram) granted bail in similar allegations. - The offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum sentence of five years, and the petitioner has been in custody since November 27, 2020. Respondent's arguments: - The cases of Mitha Ram and Ganga Ram are distinguishable on the ground of custody period. - The petitioner is not cooperating with the investigation.