Rajinder Bassi vs. State Of Punjab

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for regular bail. The primary reasoning for granting bail was twofold: the significant period of custody already undergone by the petitioners (over 9 months) and the fact that the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is 5 years. Furthermore, the Court gave considerable weight to the fact that the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, itself is under challenge in a separate writ petition before a Division Bench of the High Court, a contention not disputed by the State counsel. The Court noted that trial proceedings were virtually at a standstill. The interim bail orders previously granted were made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The ratio decidendi is that when the fundamental law under which proceedings are initiated is under challenge, and the accused have undergone substantial custody, bail may be granted, especially if the trial is not progressing.

Facts

Three petitioners, Rajinder Bassi, Tarun Bassi, and Manish Paul, approached the High Court seeking regular bail in a criminal complaint filed under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The allegations involve availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ₹19.83 crores based on invoices without actual sale of goods. The State of Punjab is the respondent. The petitioners have been in custody for over 9 months. A significant development is that the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, have been challenged by one of the accused, Tarun Bassi, in a separate writ petition (CWP No.8004-2020), where notice of motion has been issued. The State counsel did not dispute this challenge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in a case involving alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹19.83 crores, considering their period of custody and the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners have undergone custody for over 9 months, and the maximum sentence for the offense is 5 years. They contend that no useful purpose would be served by further detention, especially since the trial proceedings are stalled. Crucially, they highlight that the vires of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, itself is under challenge in a separate writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court, which has issued notice of motion. Respondent's (State of Punjab) arguments: The State opposes the bail application, emphasizing the substantial amount involved in the alleged scam (over ₹19 crores) and arguing that no case for bail is made out.