Sh. Vikas Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, finding prima facie that the applicant was arrested without a recorded reason to believe or satisfaction, no GST recovery notice was issued, and taxes/penalties were not ascertained. The Court noted that the alleged offenses are punishable up to five years imprisonment, are compoundable, and triable by a Magistrate. Citing established Supreme Court judgments on bail, including State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay, the Court considered the totality of facts and circumstances. While not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, the Court deemed it a fit case for granting bail. The applicant was released on furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to several conditions including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, appearing before the trial court, filing an undertaking against seeking adjournments, not indulging in criminal activity, and surrendering his passport. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. The observations were limited to the bail application.

Facts

The applicant, Vikas Jain, filed a bail application before the Allahabad High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was arrested in connection with Case No. 2924 of 2023 for an offense punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, by the Department DGGI, Ghaziabad. His previous bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Meerut, on October 31, 2023. The applicant argued he was innocent, falsely implicated, and arrested without proper justification. He also contended that no GST recovery notice was issued, taxes and penalties were not ascertained, and the offenses were compoundable and triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has been in jail since September 19, 2023, and has a prior case under similar sections of the CGST Act where he was granted bail. The DGGI opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of the applicant re-offending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant was justified under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the alleged offenses and the lack of prior notice or ascertained tax liability? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 132(1)(b)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of arrest). Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that his arrest was illegal as no reason to believe or satisfaction was recorded by the arresting authority. He asserted that no notice for GST recovery was issued, and the tax and penalty amounts were not ascertained. He further contended that the alleged offenses are punishable up to five years imprisonment, are compoundable in nature, and triable by a Magistrate, making bail appropriate. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the DGGI supported the order of the Sessions Court and opposed the bail application, stating the allegations were serious. However, no contrary material was presented. The counsel also argued that the applicant might indulge in similar activities if released and that this was a second case of a similar nature against the applicant.