Atul Chopra S/O Ashok Chopra vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court allowed the second bail application. The Court noted that the alleged offences were under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (j), and (k) of the RGST Act, 2017, with a maximum sentence of five years under Section 132(a)(i). The Court observed from the charge-sheet that total inward supply was Rs. 133 crores, including Rs. 108 crores of imported goods. Total outward supply was Rs. 32 crores. The tax on the imported goods would only become payable after eighteen months. The tax on the remaining amount was found to be below Rs. 5 crores. A deposit of Rs. 2.5 crores was already with the authorities. The Court also considered the reported fire incident and the fact that the petitioner had furnished a bond for the Rs. 108 crores import. The petitioner had been in custody for over five months, and no notice regarding outstanding tax had been issued. In light of these facts and the cited judgments, the Court deemed it proper to grant bail. The petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, deposit his passport, and not leave the country without prior permission.

Facts

The petitioner, Atul Chopra, is seeking a second bail application in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (j), and (k) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 (RGST). The petitioner imported goods worth Rs. 108 crores in 2018, which were exempted from tax subject to export within eighteen months. The petitioner contends this period had not expired, and extensions were possible. A fire occurred in his factory on September 3, 2018. The petitioner was arrested on June 7, 2019, and a charge-sheet has been filed. The charge-sheet allegedly contains discrepancies regarding inward and outward supply figures. The petitioner argues that the tax evaded is less than Rs. 5 crores, making the offence bailable, and that his co-directors have not been charged. The revenue contends that there was a significant stock deficit and tax evasion of approximately Rs. 25 crores.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(a), (h), (j), and (k) of the RGST Act, 2017, and the quantum of alleged tax evasion. Petitioner's Arguments: - The goods imported were exempted from tax, subject to export within eighteen months, a period that had not yet expired. Extensions were also permissible. - No assessment notice was issued by the authorities. - A fire occurred in the factory, which was reported. - There are discrepancies in the charge-sheet regarding inward and outward supply figures. - The alleged tax evasion is less than Rs. 5 crores, making the offence bailable. - Co-directors (father and wife) have not been charge-sheeted. - Reliance was placed on 'M/S. Jayachand Alloys (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Gst', 'Gaurav Kumar Aanchaliya vs. Union of India', and 'Pradeep vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Selam & Anr.'. Revenue's Arguments: - Physical verification revealed a stock deficit of Rs. 101 crores. - The petitioner sold goods without outward supply invoices, evading tax to the tune of Rs. 18 crores. - The total tax evasion is Rs. 25 crores, disentitling the petitioner to bail. - The petitioner imported goods worth Rs. 108 crores but exported only Rs. 3.55 crores, thus evading tax and customs duty.