Vikas Naresh Chandra Kansal vs. State Of Gujarat
Facts
The applicant, Vikas Naresh Chandra Kansal, a partner of Universal Enterprises, is seeking regular bail. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) conducted searches at his business premises and those of his family members between August 22, 2025, and August 28, 2025. During these searches, documentary and electronic evidence were seized. The DGGI alleged that Universal Enterprises failed to pay GST amounting to Rs. 4.37 Crore and VNG Packaging Pvt. Ltd. failed to deposit GST of Rs. 4.99 Crore, consolidating the total alleged non-payment to Rs. 9.34 Crore. The applicant was summoned on August 28, 2025, but was arrested on August 26, 2025, by the DGGI, allegedly without subjective satisfaction or a 'reason to believe' as required under Section 69 of the CGST Act, despite being treated as a witness.
Held
The Court allowed the application for regular bail. It noted that substantial investigation was complete, the applicant had no past antecedents, and had deposited Rs. 84,00,000/- before the GST Department, with the payment receipt being taken on record. The Court also observed that the applicant had deep roots in society, and there was no apprehension of him fleeing or tampering with evidence or witnesses. Consequently, the application deserved consideration, subject to suitable conditions. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to conditions including not misusing liberty, not acting injuriously to the prosecution's interest, not leaving India without permission, depositing his passport, appearing before the Investigation Officer as required, and attending court regularly. The Court also directed that the trial court should not be influenced by these preliminary observations when deciding the case.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in connection with the offenses punishable under Section 132(1)(a), (b), & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the allegations of GST evasion amounting to Rs. 9.34 Crore? The petitioner argued that he is not directly or indirectly involved in the alleged offense and is willing to deposit 50% of the disputed amount to demonstrate bona fides. He requested the Court to exercise discretion in his favor by imposing suitable conditions. The respondent No. 2 (original complainant) submitted that appropriate orders may be passed given the petitioner's readiness to deposit 50% of the alleged amount. The respondent-State submitted to pass an appropriate order considering the facts and circumstances. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue beyond submitting to the court's decision.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 69, Section 70
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State and learned Advocate Mr.Tirth Nayak waives service of notice for respondent No.2 – original complainant.
Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Unwala with Mr.Thakkar, learned advocate for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr.Naik for respondent No.2 and learned APP Mr.Patel for the respondent-State.
This application is filed under Section 483
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.