Vijay Kumar Nair vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Department Of Revenue Intelligence And Directorate General Of Goods And Services
Held
The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the petitioner, Vijay Kumar Nair, on the same terms as granted to co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga. The Court found that the petitioner's case for granting bail was made out. While the revenue contested the parity, the Court noted that no substantial grounds were presented to distinguish the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner's assertion that he was not connected with the firm M/s Vishnu Essence, which was not rebutted. The Court explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with sureties, subject to conditions such as cooperating with the trial, not tampering with witnesses, not committing further offenses, and submitting his passport. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Nair, filed an application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a crime registered under Section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act and Sections 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC. The case was registered by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence. The petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, who had been granted bail. He argued that his case was even stronger as he was not a partner of the firm M/s Vishnu Essence, which was allegedly involved in tax evasion, and was merely a trader for M/s AAA Enterprises. The prosecution's case relied on his statement recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act, which he claimed was made under coercion and was retracted. He also cited his age (63 years), health issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic as grounds for bail.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, considering Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 132(5) of the GST Act? 2. Whether the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 70 of the GST Act, allegedly made under coercion and subsequently retracted, can form the sole basis for denying bail? 3. Whether the petitioner's age, health conditions, and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic warrant granting bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued for parity with co-accused Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, asserting his case was on better footing as he was not connected with the firm M/s Vishnu Essence, the primary entity accused of tax evasion. He contended that his statement under Section 70 of the GST Act was involuntary and retracted. He also highlighted his age, health issues, and the pandemic risk. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Additional Solicitor General contested the parity claimed by the petitioner. However, the judgment notes that no substantial distinction was pointed out. The revenue also referred to provisions of the GST Act, including Sections 69, 70, 131, 133, 135, and 136, and relied on Supreme Court judgments regarding economic offenses and the object of arrest.
Sections Cited
Section 439, Section 132(1)(a)(i), Section 409, Section 467, Section 471, Section 120-B, Section 70, Section 69, Section 132(5), Section 131, Section 133, Section 135, Section 136
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Indore, Dated:- 13
/08/2020 Heard with consent of the parties through Video Conferencing. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri N. L. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner—Vijay Kumar Nair. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Shri Prasanna Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India.
This is the first application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “GST Act”), Ss. 409, 467, 471, 120-B of the IPC by the Department of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Central Excise Office, District Indore (here-in-after referred to as the ‘Department’).
At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner claimed parity with co-accused—Amit Bothra and Ashok Daga, who have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.21628/2020 and 21618/2020 respectively.
He further asserted that rather the case of the pe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.