Akash Batta vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. Regarding the maintainability of the FIR under the IPC for alleged tax evasion, the Court noted the petitioner's argument that the CGST Act, 2017, is a special statute. However, the Court did not definitively rule on this specific legal contention in the context of the bail application. Instead, it focused on the bail aspect. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has been in custody since 29.10.2023 and that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Citing the Supreme Court's observations in 'Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI' regarding the large number of undertrial prisoners and the principle that arrest should be used sparingly, and further relying on 'Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP' and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P.', the Court held that involvement in other cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. The Court ordered the petitioner's release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Batta, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 155 dated 29.10.2023, registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The FIR alleged that the petitioner and accomplices were preparing fake bills/bilties and loading scrap iron onto trucks from Delhi, intended for sale in local furnaces to evade government taxes. The petitioner was apprehended with scrap iron and alleged fake bills. He has been in custody since 29.10.2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR registered under the Indian Penal Code is maintainable when the alleged evasion of tax falls under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is a special statute with a complete mechanism for punishment for tax evasion offences? 2. Whether the allegations in the FIR attract offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, given that the petitioner was allegedly carrying scrap iron without valid bills? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that tax evasion is exclusively governed by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a special statute, and therefore, an FIR under the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable. He further contended that there is no evidence to attract Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, as the FIR only states he was carrying scrap iron without valid bills. Respondent's Contentions: The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is facing trial in three other cases.