Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vinaykant Ameta S/O Shri Shantilal ... vs Union Of India on 7 December, 2021
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18243/2021
Vinaykant Ameta S/o Shri Shantilal Ameta, Aged About 52 Years,
R/o 75-76 Acharya Marg Chandpole Bahar Udaipur Raj. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Special P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Adv.
Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya, Adv.
Mr. Harish Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing
Counsel for DGGI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
Judgment Reserved on : 03/12/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 07/12/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/GST/2916/2021-Gr-K-O/o
DD-DGGI/RU-Udaipur, relating to offence punishable under
Sections 132 (1)(a), (f),(h),(j),(1) of Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is a simply Director in
the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since
25.10.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
the respondent's department does not have adequate data for
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:41:05 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-18243/2021]
evasion of tax of Rs.869 Crore. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that case of the respondent depends on surmises and
conjectures. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
maximum punishment in this case is 5 years. There is no concrete
evidence that petitioner had created any kind of false record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondent
department had failed to seize any unaccounted bill regarding
packaging of tabacco in the premises. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that evaded tax on seized material is
Rs.8,65,595/-. So, the tax evasion is below 5 crore. So, it is
bailable as per the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that M/s Miraj Products Private Limited deposited Rs.60
crore as a protest and offence against the petitioner is
compoundable and triable by Magistrate. So, the petitioner be
enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Tarun Jain Vs.
Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (Bail
AppN.3771/2021 and Crl.M.A.16552/2021) decided on
26.11.2021 and the judgment passed by this Court in Ronak
Kumar Jain Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.16083/2021) decided on 04.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the petitioner is working as a Director in the M/s
Miraj Products Private Limited. So, he is responsible for the tax
evasion. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that
till today, total tax evasion is Rs.869 Crore. Learned counsel for
the respondent also submitted that M/s Miraj Products Private
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:41:05 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-18243/2021]
Limited had created the fake firm for tax evasion. Learned counsel
for the respondent also submitted that investigation is still going
on. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that if they
had not evaded the tax then no occasion to deposit of Rs.60 Crore
arises. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that
department had summoned the various persons of the M/s Miraj
Products Private Limited Group for investigation but they had not
turned up for investigation till today. So, the bail application be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
It is admitted position that the M/s Miraj Products Private Limited had evaded the tax. GST department had seized the one truck which was being unloaded at their premises. Department had collected data till today, tax evasion of Rs.869 Crore. As per version of learned counsel for the petitioner, they had deposited Rs.60 Crore as a protest. In my opinion, if they had not evaded the tax, then there would have been no occasion to deposit of Rs.60 Crore as a protest. Apex Court in various pronouncement held that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. So, after considering the submission put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and also looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the petitioner without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:41:05 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-18243/2021] Hence, the bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /79 (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:41:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)