Shashi Kumar Choudhury vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court considered the entirety of the matter, including the fact that the entire issue related to tax and that the Tax Department had issued notices and was in the process of procuring necessary documents to proceed under the GST Act, 2017. The Court found that custodial detention of the accused persons was not warranted in the circumstances. Consequently, the interim pre-arrest bail that had been granted earlier was made absolute. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the investigation as and when required. The case diary was ordered to be returned. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Shashi Kumar Choudhury, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 3727/2019, involving charges under Sections 420/406/468/471 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Inspector of State Tax, Assam, alleging default in payment of GST by M/s Vaishno Trading. It was alleged that while Sambhu Das was listed as the proprietor on the GST portal, the business was actually conducted by Shashi Choudhury, proprietor of M/s SK Enterprises. The allegation further stated that to evade GST, fake supplies of commodities were shown. The Tax Department had issued a demand notice under Section 122(1)(xii) of the GST Act, 2017, for alleged violations. Notices were also issued to the petitioner and Sambhu Das.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case involving alleged GST evasion and related IPC offenses, considering the nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation by the Tax Department. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, implying a concern about potential custodial detention. The judgment does not explicitly record detailed arguments from the petitioner's counsel beyond the prayer for bail. Revenue/State's Contention: The State, represented by the PP, Assam, was present and heard. The judgment indicates that the matter relates to tax evasion and that the Tax Department had issued notices and was in the process of procuring documents to proceed under the GST Act, 2017. No specific arguments against the grant of bail were explicitly detailed in the judgment.