Amit Sharma S/O Shri Omprakash Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. The reasoning was based on two primary grounds: firstly, the maximum sentence provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the alleged offence is 5 years. Secondly, the prosecution did not present any apprehension regarding the petitioner absconding, tampering with witnesses, or influencing them. The Court found these factors sufficient to grant bail. The operative direction was to admit the petitioner to regular bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The specific amount of GST demand (Rs. 5.54 Crores) and the alleged non-service of notices under Sections 46 and 76 were considered in the context of granting bail, but the Court did not make a definitive finding on the merits of these contentions for the purpose of the bail application itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Sharma, was arrested in connection with File No. IV(06)282/AE/JPR/2019, for an alleged offence under Section 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends he was falsely implicated and that notices under Sections 46 and 76 of the CGST Act were not served prior to his arrest. The alleged GST demand is Rs. 5.54 Crores. The petitioner has been in custody since December 25, 2020. The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, argued that notice was served before the search and cancellation of registration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the alleged offence under Section 132(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that mandatory notices under Section 46 and Section 76 of the CGST Act were not served prior to his arrest. He also contended that the maximum sentence under the Act is 5 years, and for offences involving amounts less than Rs. 5 crores, the offence is bailable. He highlighted that he has been in custody since December 25, 2020. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (Union of India) opposed the bail application, submitting that notice was served upon the petitioner prior to the search and cancellation of registration.