Himani Munjal W/O Shri Ankush Munjar vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court dismissed the bail application. The primary reasoning for dismissal was the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. The respondent's submission that the accused had created 35 fake firms, made fake entries, and issued invoices involving a tax amount exceeding ₹66.81 crores for the purpose of evading GST input taxes across multiple states was considered significant. The Court found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner in light of these serious allegations. No specific provisions of the CGST Act were explicitly discussed in relation to the bail decision, other than the sections under which the offenses were registered. The Court did not leave any issue undecided; the sole issue was the grant of bail.
Facts
The petitioner, Himani Munjal, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She is currently in custody since August 3, 2018, in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018. The complaint pertains to alleged offenses under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), (i), and (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, punishable under Section 132(1)(i) and (iv) read with Section 132(5) of the same Act. The respondent, Union of India through the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Jaipur, contends that the accused, including the petitioner, created 35 fake firms. These firms were allegedly used to make fake entries and issue invoices involving a tax amount exceeding ₹66.81 crores, facilitating GST input tax evasion across multiple states.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering the allegations of serious offenses under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that she has been falsely implicated in the case and has been in custody since August 3, 2018, suggesting that continued detention may not be warranted. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, Union of India, through the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, contends that the gravity of the alleged offenses, involving the creation of 35 fake firms, fake entries, issuance of invoices for over ₹66.81 crores, and evasion of GST input taxes across various states (Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Gujarat, Assam, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan), does not warrant the grant of bail.
Sections Cited
Section 132(1)(b), Section 132(1)(c), Section 132(1)(d), Section 132(1)(f), Section 132(1)(i), Section 132(1)(l), Section 132(5), Section 439
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Judgment / Order 30/09/2019
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Jaipur Mahanagar, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 punishable under Section 132 (1)(i) and (iv) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Section 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody sinc
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.