Vinaykant Ameta S/O Shri Shantilal Ameta vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court acknowledged the admitted position that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had evaded tax and that the department had collected data indicating tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crore. The Court found the petitioner's submission that Rs. 60 Crore was deposited as a protest to be significant, reasoning that such a deposit would not have occurred if tax had not been evaded. Citing Apex Court pronouncements on economic offenders being a serious threat to the national economy, the Court concluded that, considering the arguments, the facts, and the seriousness of the alleged offences, it was not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application was dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinaykant Ameta, Director of M/s Miraj Products Private Limited, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. This arose from proceedings initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) concerning alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (f), (h), (j), (l) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner has been in custody since October 25, 2021. The petitioner's counsel argued that the department lacked adequate data for the alleged tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crore, that the case was based on surmises, and that the actual evaded tax on seized material was Rs. 8,65,595/-, which is below the Rs. 5 Crore threshold for a bailable offence. The petitioner also highlighted that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited deposited Rs. 60 Crore as a protest, and the offence is compoundable and triable by a Magistrate. The respondent opposed the bail, asserting the petitioner's responsibility as Director for the alleged tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crore, the creation of fake firms for evasion, and that investigations are ongoing. The respondent also noted that summoned individuals from M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had not appeared for investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of the alleged tax evasion and the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning the amount of tax evaded and the nature of the offences. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the tax evasion amount of Rs. 869 Crore was not adequately substantiated by the respondent department, and the case relied on surmises and conjectures. They argued that the actual evaded tax on seized material was Rs. 8,65,595/-, which is below the Rs. 5 Crore threshold, making the offence bailable. The petitioner also pointed out that the company deposited Rs. 60 Crore as a protest, and the offence is compoundable and triable by a Magistrate. Reliance was placed on judgments from the Delhi High Court (Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI) and the Rajasthan High Court (Ronak Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India). Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner, as a Director, is responsible for the alleged tax evasion of Rs. 869 Crore. They asserted that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited created fake firms for tax evasion, the investigation is ongoing, and the deposit of Rs. 60 Crore indicates tax evasion. The respondent also highlighted that summoned individuals had not appeared for investigation.