Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia vs. Union Of INDIA Represented By Shri Dinesh Kumar

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia, is accused in Complaint Case No. 5760 of 2023 for offences under sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner is alleged to have evaded GST amounting to Rs. 48.19 crore over three financial years. Charge has been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application for early hearing, which was dismissed as the matter was taken up. The petitioner is seeking bail in this matter.

Held

The Court held that the maximum punishment for the offences under sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is five years. Considering that charge has already been framed against the petitioner, the Court directed the petitioner's release on bail. The bail was granted on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 100,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the investigation, appear before the Investigating Agency as and when required, and file an undertaking not to influence the investigation or trial. Furthermore, the petitioner is prohibited from travelling abroad without the permission of the learned Trial Court. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, considering the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the stage of the proceedings? The petitioner argued that the offences alleged are punishable with a maximum of five years imprisonment. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ratnambar Kaushik v. Union of India, which held that for similar tax evasion allegations, an accused who has been in custody for four months may be released on bail. The petitioner also highlighted that the trial is likely to take considerable time. The revenue (Union of India) argued that one witness stated co-accused persons attempted to influence the investigation by persuading him not to disclose their names. They further submitted that the petitioner will require further interrogation as new facts have emerged during the investigation, and charge has already been framed.