Amit Chandrakant Shah vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. The Court considered that the applicant was arrested on December 6, 2019, and approximately 90 days had passed. The offences under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (k), (l) of the GST Acts and Section 120-B of the IPC are punishable with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. The wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit was stated to be beyond Rs. 5 crores. The Court also noted that no remand was sought by the concerned department despite the arrest. The Court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of like amount, subject to several conditions, including not misusing liberty, not acting injuriously to the prosecution, surrendering his passport, not leaving India without permission, marking presence with the respondent, and furnishing an undertaking regarding his immovable properties. The trial court was directed not to be influenced by the prima facie observations made in this order.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Chandrakant Shah, filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. The application pertains to a case registered with the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-1, Unit-6, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c), (f), (k), (l) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged offence involves wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 5 crores. The petitioner was arrested on December 6, 2019, and approximately 90 days had passed since his arrest at the time of the hearing. The prosecution opposed the grant of bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail in connection with the offences registered under the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through his learned senior advocate, argued that considering the nature of the offence, he may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. The petitioner's counsel did not press for a further reasoned order. Respondent's Contention: The respondent-State, through the learned APP, opposed the grant of regular bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence. The respondent's counsel also did not press for a further reasoned order.