Lalitbhai Natvarlal Patel vs. R.I. Pandey
Held
The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the fact that the allegations against the directors, including the applicant, were that they received ITC without receiving raw material, and witness statements indicated only invoices were provided. The Court noted that another director had already been arrested, interrogated, and released on regular bail, and a significant sum had been deposited by a co-accused. Given these circumstances, and the applicant's assurance of cooperation, the Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary at this stage. The Court relied on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab. The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, subject to several conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, appearance on a specific date, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and furnishing his address. The Investigating Officer was permitted to apply for remand if deemed proper, with the Magistrate to decide on merits. The Trial Court was cautioned not to be influenced by the prima facie observations.
Facts
The applicant, Lalitbhai Natvarlal Patel, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (F.No.DGGI/AZU/12(4)72/2018-19). The allegations pertained to the directors of Nandeshwari Steel Limited allegedly receiving Input Tax Credit (ITC) without receiving raw material. The applicant is one of the directors. Another director, Mr. Mitesh Patel, had already been arrested, interrogated, and released on regular bail. The co-accused director had also shown willingness to deposit Rs. 1 crore, which was deposited. The applicant assured cooperation with the investigation and availability for interrogation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offence under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the stage of investigation? The petitioner argued that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that he would cooperate with the investigation and trial. He was willing to abide by all conditions, including the Investigating Agency's right to seek remand. The revenue, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offence.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the summons
issued
from F.No.DGGI/AZU/12(4)72/2018-19 being issued u/s 70 of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the nature of allegations are such for which custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant will keep himself available during the
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.