Shri Abhay Sanatbhai Bhatt vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered the fact that the applicant has been in jail since January 18, 2019. While acknowledging the allegations of wrongly availing input tax credit and passing it on, the Court noted that for the alleged transaction, it remains open for the respondent-department to take departmental action for recovery of penalty. The Court also took into account the assurance given by the applicant's counsel that the applicant will cooperate with the respondent department during further investigation. The Court found this to be a fit case to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, citing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, subject to several conditions such as not misusing liberty, not acting injuriously to the prosecution, surrendering passport, not leaving India without permission, marking presence at the police station monthly, and not changing residence without prior permission. The Trial Court was also directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Abhay Sanatbhai Bhatt, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The bail was sought in connection with an offence registered by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Bhavnagar, under F.No.V/12-11/AE/JAB/2018-19. The alleged offence is under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in jail since January 18, 2019. The allegations involve wrongly availing input tax credit and passing it on to buyers. The respondent-department opposed the grant of bail due to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with the offence registered under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering his period of incarceration and the nature of allegations? The petitioner argued that considering the nature of the offence, he should be granted regular bail with suitable conditions. He also highlighted that he has been in jail since January 18, 2019, and assured cooperation with the respondent department during further investigation. The petitioner's counsel also pointed out that similar cases have been considered favorably by this Court. The respondent-State, through the learned APP, opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The respondent-department did not press for a further reasoned order.