Ankit Mahajan vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The primary allegation against the petitioner was GST evasion on a seized truck carrying goods manufactured by him, though the ownership of the goods was disputed. The Court noted that the GST amount, excluding the penalty, had already been paid. Furthermore, the investigation was complete, and the challan had been presented. Therefore, the petitioner's custody was no longer required, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him incarcerated. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal/surety bond of ₹10 lakh each, surrendering his passport, and not leaving India without prior court permission. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were not to be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankit Mahajan, seeks regular bail in FIR No. 09 dated 21.08.2020, registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations involve evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST) on tobacco, allegedly in connivance with Som Nath, owner of Sadhu Transport Co., and certain Excise and Taxation Officers (ETOs). The petitioner has been in custody since 24.12.2020. The petitioner argues that an e-way bill was generated, albeit late, and an amount of ₹12 lakhs has been deposited towards GST. The State contends that a penalty of ₹20,49,000/- remains unpaid and that there is a deep-rooted conspiracy to evade GST amounting to crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in light of the allegations of GST evasion and alleged connivance with officials and a transport company owner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends he has been wrongly implicated and is in custody since 24.12.2020. The core allegation is evasion of GST on tobacco, but an e-way bill was generated, and ₹12 lakhs has been deposited towards GST. There is no direct allegation of the petitioner paying a bribe to any ETO, who are co-accused. The issue of non-payment of penalty is being challenged independently and should not affect bail. The CGST Act is a complete code, and the petitioner will face independent proceedings under it. Respondent-State's Arguments: The State argues that the petitioner has not paid the penalty of ₹20,49,000/-. While the petitioner may not have interacted directly with ETOs, he, along with Som Nath, managed to evade GST payment. The truck should not have left the premises before GST payment. A deep-rooted conspiracy involving Som Nath and various ETOs to evade GST running into crores is alleged.