Manjeet Kaur Bansal W/O Late Shri Ajay Pal Singh Bansal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court allowed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The Court considered the petitioner's status as a lady and the fact that out of the total outstanding amount of Rs. 2,97,11,086/-, the company has already deposited Rs. 1.12 Crore (Rs. 12 lacs initially plus Rs. 1 Crore deposited by the petitioner). The reasoning implicitly acknowledges the mitigating factors presented by the petitioner, such as her gender and the significant amount deposited, which contributed to the decision to grant bail. The operative direction is the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, and a condition not to leave India without prior permission of the trial court. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Manjeet Kaur Bansal, a 57-year-old widow, is seeking bail in a case registered by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, for offenses under Sections 89(1)(d) & 89(1)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994. The DGGI issued a show cause notice to M/s. Dynamic Team Security Services Private Limited, where the petitioner was a Director, for non-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,97,11,086/-. The company had deposited only Rs. 12 lacs against the due amount. The petitioner has been in custody since March 29, 2019. She has since deposited Rs. 1 Crore with the department. The petitioner argues that a separate adjudication mechanism exists under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, which has not been initiated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given her age, gender, and the amount deposited, despite allegations of being a habitual offender in economic offenses? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of bail and economic offenses). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, a widow aged 57, has demonstrated bona fides by depositing Rs. 1 Crore. She highlights the existence of a statutory adjudication mechanism under Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, which has not been invoked. She relies on the fact that she is a lady and has made a substantial deposit. Respondent's (Union of India) Arguments: The respondent opposes bail, arguing that the petitioner is a habitual offender, having been a director in another company, M/s. Wisdom Guards Pvt. Ltd., which also defaulted on service tax payments, leading to completed adjudication. They contend that the present matter involves economic offenses and cite the Supreme Court judgment in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation to argue against granting bail.