ASHUTOSH GARG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been impleaded as accused in the instant case on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under Sec. 70 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "the CGST Act, 2017"). Counsel submits that the aforesaid statement of the petitioner is not admissible in evidence, at this stage, as the same is not relevant, as there was no adjudication of the allegations on merit in view of Sec. 136 of the CGST Act, 2017. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been arrested in the instant case on 2/11/2023 and after his arrest, complaint has been filed against him for the offences punishable under Sec. 132(1) (b) (c) (f) (j) (l) of the CGST Act, 2017 on 30/12/2023. Counsel submits that the maximum punishment for the above alleged offence is five years and the same is triable by the Court of Magistrate (First Class). Counsel submits that looking to the period of incarceration of the petitioner and looking to the fact that the alleged offence is triable by Court of Magistrate, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the following cases:-

(2.) Per contra, learned counsel for the Union of India opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Sec. 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, it was revealed that the petitioner has created and operated 294 fake firms and has evaded a tax of Rs.1,032.00 Crores. Counsel submits that when the investigation was conducted by the investigating agency, this fact came on the record that one co-accused Anil Kumar was also in conspiracy with the petitioner and a separate complaint has been filed against the said co-accused Anil Kumar bearing No.DGGI/ INV/122/2023-Gr.-F-O/o ADG-DGGI-ZU, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sec. 132(1) (b) (c) (f) and (l) of the CGST Act, 2017. Counsel submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already rejected the bail application of the coaccused Anil Kumar (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15833/2023) vide order dtd. 19/2/2024. Counsel submits that not only the confessional statement of the petitioner is there on the record, but the evidence is also there when physical verification of more than 50 fake firms created by the petitioner was done inasmuch as, the address of all the fake firms is one and the same. Counsel submits that the petitioner was involved in committing the offence and has caused loss of Rs.1,032.00 Crores to the Government. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get indulgence of bail from this Court. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following orders/judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as different High Courts, in the following cases:-

(3.) Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.