Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi) vs. Sh. Vikas Garg & Ors.

Held

The Court noted the submissions of both parties. The petitioner, DGGI, sought to set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, citing the respondents' alleged non-cooperation with the investigation and the significant amount of tax (Rs. 44.00 Crores) and ITC in dispute. The respondents, on the other hand, stated that they had deposited Rs. 5.00 Crores and were willing to join the investigation as and when directed by the Intelligence Officer. In light of the respondents' undertaking to cooperate with the investigation, the Court directed them to join the investigation as and when directed by the Intelligence Officer of the Department. Furthermore, the Court imposed a condition that the respondents shall not tamper with the documents or intimidate witnesses. With these directions, the petition was disposed of.

Facts

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), the petitioner, filed a petition seeking to set aside an order dated June 30, 2022, passed by the Sessions Court, which granted anticipatory bail to the respondents. The DGGI alleged that a sum of Rs. 44.00 Crores is to be recovered as tax from the respondents. The respondents, through their counsel, stated that Rs. 5.00 Crores, representing 12.5% of the alleged wrongful claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC), has been deposited. The DGGI contended that no conditions were imposed at the time of granting anticipatory bail, and the respondents were subsequently not joining the investigation. The respondents' counsel, however, submitted that they have no objection to joining the investigation as and when directed by the Intelligence Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court to the respondents, in a case involving alleged recovery of Rs. 44.00 Crores as tax and wrongful claim of ITC, was appropriate, considering the subsequent non-cooperation with the investigation? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of anticipatory bail and investigation procedures). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the anticipatory bail order was flawed because no conditions were imposed, leading to the respondents' non-cooperation with the ongoing investigation. They emphasized the substantial amount of tax and ITC involved. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, while not directly arguing against the petitioner's claim of non-cooperation, fairly submitted that they were willing to join the investigation as directed by the Intelligence Officer. They also highlighted the deposit of Rs. 5.00 Crores.