Sandeep Goyal S/O Shri Satpal Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners. The reasoning for dismissal was primarily based on the fact that a co-accused, Himani Munjal, had previously been denied bail by the same Court through an order dated 10.09.2018. The Court noted the prosecution's case that the petitioners, in conspiracy with others, had created thirty-five fake firms, issued invoices involving a tax amount exceeding Rupees ten crores, and used these firms to evade GST input taxes. The Court found that since the bail petition of a co-accused involved in the same alleged scheme was dismissed, the present petition was also liable to be dismissed on similar grounds. No specific analysis of the individual offenses under Section 132 of the CGST Act was undertaken to determine bail eligibility; the decision rested on the dismissal of the co-accused's bail.

Facts

The petitioners, Sandeep Goyal and Rajesh Arora, are seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They are accused in Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018 for offenses under various sub-sections of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners, in connivance with others, created thirty-five fake firms and issued invoices involving a tax amount exceeding Rupees ten crores. These firms were allegedly used to evade GST input taxes. The petitioners are currently lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur. The respondent is the Union of India, through the Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in light of the alleged offenses under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), (i), and (i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 132(1), (i) & (iv) and sub-section 5 of the said Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued for their entitlement to regular bail. (Specific arguments not detailed in the judgment). Respondent's contention: The respondent, Union of India, opposed the bail application. The prosecution's case is that the petitioners, in league with others, established 35 fake firms, generated fake invoices totaling over ₹10 crores in tax, and utilized these for GST input tax evasion. The respondent highlighted that a co-accused, Himani Munjal, had her bail petition dismissed by this Court on 10.09.2018.