Akshay Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, holding that the applicant has been arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justify his arrest as provided in the Act. The Court noted that the alleged offences are punishable up to five years imprisonment, no notice for GST recovery has been issued, and penalties or taxes have not been ascertained as per the Act. It was also observed that the offences are compoundable in nature and triable by a Magistrate. Applying the settled law that bail considerations include the nature of accusation, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and circumstances peculiar to the accused, the Court found it a fit case for bail. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay and Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. The applicant was released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, with conditions to not tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, remain present for trial proceedings, file an undertaking against adjournment requests, and not indulge in criminal activity. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were limited to the bail application and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

This is a bail application filed by Akshay Goyal under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant seeks release on bail in Complaint Case No. 25182 of 2023, under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The applicant was arrested on July 23, 2023, and his previous bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Agra, on September 30, 2023. The applicant contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, and arrested without proper justification or satisfaction as required by law. He argues that the alleged offences are punishable up to five years imprisonment, are compoundable, and triable by a Magistrate. No GST recovery notice has been issued, and taxes/penalties have not yet been ascertained. The applicant has a criminal history of only one case, which has been explained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant's arrest was justified under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, considering the absence of a recorded reason to believe or satisfaction by the arresting authority? (Section 69 of CGST Act, 2017) 2. Whether the alleged offences under Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, are compoundable and triable by a Magistrate, making the applicant eligible for bail? 3. Whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, considering the nature of the allegations, the severity of punishment, and the applicant's circumstances? Contentions of the Petitioner (Akshay Goyal): The applicant argued that he was arrested without any reason to believe or satisfaction recorded by the authority, as mandated by the Act. He submitted that the offences alleged are punishable up to five years imprisonment, are compoundable in nature, and triable by a Magistrate. Furthermore, no notice for GST recovery was issued, and taxes/penalties have not been ascertained. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another. He also stated he has only one prior criminal case, which has been explained. Contentions of the Opposite Party (Union of India): The Union of India supported the order of the Sessions Court and opposed the bail application, submitting that the allegations are very serious. They relied on a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India, against which a Special Leave Petition was rejected by the Supreme Court. They argued that if released, the applicant might indulge in similar activities and misuse bail.