Hitesh Gaurishankar Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties and perusing the averments and documents, prima facie opined that it was a fit case to exercise discretion to enlarge the applicant on bail. The Court did not discuss the evidence in detail or go into the specifics of the allegations. The Court found that the application for bail was to be allowed. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail in connection with the arrest memo dated July 19, 2022, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. Specific conditions were imposed, including not misusing liberty, not acting injuriously to the prosecution's interest, surrendering the passport, not leaving India without permission, and furnishing present address. The Court explicitly stated that the trial court shall not be influenced by these preliminary observations regarding the evidence. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, but the Court avoided detailed examination of evidence at this stage.

Facts

The applicant, Hitesh Gaurishankar Patel, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail. The bail was sought in connection with an arrest memo dated July 19, 2022, issued by the Inspector (A.E.), CGST, Gandhinagar. The arrest was for alleged offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(i), and 137 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant's counsel argued that the arrest was a retaliatory measure following the applicant's Special Civil Application No. 9060 of 2022, which challenged the issuance of 24 summons and an inspection under Section 67 of the CGST Act. The applicant contended that the offence under Section 132(1)(a) was not made out as there was no intention to evade tax or engage in fraudulent practices, nor was it a case of sale without invoice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant is a counterblast to the Special Civil Application filed by him, thereby vitiating the proceedings? (Mixed question of fact and law, turning on the intent behind the arrest and the provisions of the CGST Act concerning investigation and prosecution). 2. Whether the allegations made out an offence under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act, specifically concerning intent to evade tax or fraudulent practices? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act). 3. Whether the allegations made out an offence under Section 132(1)(i) and Section 137 of the CGST Act? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of Sections 132(1)(i) and 137 of the CGST Act). Contentions: Petitioner: The arrest was a counterblast to a previous writ petition. The offence under Section 132(1)(a) was not made out due to lack of intent to evade tax or fraudulent practice, and it was not a case of sale without invoice. Reliance was placed on the nature of the offence and the applicant's role. Revenue/State: The learned APP opposed the grant of bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The learned ASG for respondent no.2 filed a reply and list of documents.