Mohit Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Through Office Of The Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Mohit Gupta. The Court considered the rival submissions, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the material on record. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court found that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant was directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Specific conditions were imposed, including not tampering with evidence, cooperating with the trial, and not indulging in any criminal activity. Breach of these conditions would be grounds for cancellation of bail. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the issue of liquidating tax liability, as suggested by the opposite party, was not explicitly decided upon as a condition for bail.

Facts

The applicant, Mohit Gupta, is seeking bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2018, under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The applicant claims to have been falsely implicated, stating that most invoices were signed by company directors, Tanuj Gupta and Kishan Gupta. The alleged offense is compoundable with a maximum punishment of five years and a fine. The applicant has been in custody since December 2, 2018, has no prior criminal history, belongs to a reputable family, and is unlikely to abscond. The opposing counsel argues that documentary evidence implicates the applicant and suggests the applicant should liquidate his tax liability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail under Section 132(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the applicant's submissions regarding false implication, compoundability of the offense, lack of criminal history, and his period of custody. Contentions: Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated, that the alleged offense is compoundable, and that he has no criminal history and has been in custody since December 2, 2018. He also argues that he belongs to a reputed family and will not abscond. Revenue (Opposite Party): The opposite party argues that documentary evidence proves the applicant's involvement in the alleged offense and suggests that the applicant should be directed to liquidate his tax liability.