Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The applicant, Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with offences registered under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Sections 463 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The alleged offences relate to tax evasion by M/s. Heugo Metal, a proprietorship of the applicant, with a disputed Input Tax Credit (ITC) evasion of Rs. 4,51,05,130/-. The applicant's firm's registration was previously cancelled but later restored by this Court. His bank accounts were also attached, but the validity of those orders expired. The applicant argued that the tax evasion attributed to his firm is less than Rs. 5 crores, making the offence bailable under Section 132(1)(i) of the GST Acts.

Held

The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court noted that the tax evasion specifically attributed to the applicant's company, M/s. Heugo Metal, was Rs. 4,51,05,130/-, which is less than Rs. 5 crores. It was acknowledged that the tax liability of another company, Dattatrey Corporation, was added, bringing the total evasion to Rs. 7,55,76,378/-, but these were distinct entities with different GST numbers. The Court found that if the tax evasion of the applicant's firm is less than Rs. 5 crores, it would indeed be a bailable offence under Section 132(1)(i) read with Sections 132(4) and 132(5) of the GST Acts. The Court also considered that over three years had passed since the raid in 2019, and previous court orders had restored the firm's registration and rendered attachment orders invalid. Relying on Apex Court judgments in Sushila Aggarwal and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, the Court concluded that the applicant had made out a case for anticipatory bail. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with a surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and presence as required. The Court also clarified that the investigating agency could still apply for police remand, which the Magistrate would decide on merits, and that the applicant's right to oppose such an application would be preserved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the offence alleged against the applicant is bailable under Section 132(1)(i) read with Sections 132(4) and 132(5) of the Gujarat GST Act, 2017, and the Central GST Act, 2017, considering the tax evasion amount attributed to his firm. Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant contended that the total tax evasion attributed to his firm, M/s. Heugo Metal, is Rs. 4,51,05,130/-, which is less than Rs. 5 crores. Therefore, the offence should be treated as bailable as per Section 132(1)(i) read with Sections 132(4) and 132(5) of the GST Acts. - He argued that the maximum punishment under Section 132 is five years, and custodial interrogation is not necessary as the investigation relies on documentary evidence already with the authorities. - The applicant highlighted that his firm's registration was restored by a Division Bench of this Court, and attachment orders have expired. - He expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by all conditions, including the possibility of remand applications. Revenue's Arguments: - The State opposed the grant of bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. - It was submitted that the charge-sheet was yet to be filed and that the investigation revealed the applicant connived with co-accused, leading to a total tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crores, necessitating custodial interrogation.