Ratnambar Kaushik S/O Late Sh. Nilambar Kaushik vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the bail application. The Court considered the petitioner's custody period of approximately three months. It noted the serious allegations against the petitioner involving an alleged evaded tax/duty amount of Rs. 15,57,28,345/-. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, emphasizing that economic offences constitute a class apart, require a different approach in bail matters due to deep-rooted conspiracies and huge losses to public funds, and pose a serious threat to the country's financial health. While acknowledging the principle from Satender Kumar Antil that economic offences should not be categorically denied bail, the Court found that in the present case, considering the gravity of the offence and the amount involved, it was not proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner, such as Ramchandra Vishnoi, were distinguished on facts, particularly regarding the custody period and bail granted to co-accused.

Facts

The petitioner, Ratnambar Kaushik, is seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case arises from a complaint filed by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (k), and (l) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner is accused of trading raw tobacco through non-existent firms, with alleged transportation from Gujarat to Delhi and Noida. The petitioner has been in custody since July 21, 2022, and a complaint was filed on September 17, 2022. The disputed amount of tax/duty evaded is stated to be Rs. 15,57,28,345/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail given the allegations of involvement in clandestine procurement and supply of raw tobacco to facilitate unaccounted manufacturing and supply of Jarda, thereby evading GST and other duties, as per Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the allegations are prima facie not against him, as he is engaged in trading raw tobacco and not manufacturing. He argues that the maximum punishment under Section 132 is five years imprisonment, and the case is triable by a First Class Magistrate. He also claims that his employee's statement was recorded under duress and was retracted. No documents or records were seized from his premises. He relies on several judgments, including Satender Kumar Antil and Ramchandra Vishnoi, concerning bail in economic offences and procedural fairness. Respondent's Arguments: The Union of India (DGGI) opposes the bail application, presenting GPS data, toll data, and RFID data indicating that seven trucks carrying raw tobacco from Gujarat, cleared in the name of M/s Maa Ambey Enterprises, actually went to M/s Galaxy Tobacco (associated with the petitioner). This, they argue, shows the petitioner's active involvement in clandestine procurement and supply to facilitate unaccounted manufacturing and supply of Jarda, with the intent to evade duty. They cite the gravity of the economic offence and the substantial amount involved, relying on judgments like Lalit Goyal and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy.