Tanya Gupta
Published on: March 9, 2022 at 20:57 IST
In the Case of Mohsin Salimbhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court asserted, “In Deciding the Bail Applications an Important Factor which should certainly be taken into Consideration by the Court is the Delay in Concluding the Trial.”
Justice Gita Gopi granted Bail to an Accused by Stating,
“Here, taking into Consideration the Course of Investigation adopted by the Department, the Evidence, so collected, the Trial will take Considerable Time and it may happen, if denied Bail, the Judicial Custody be prolonged beyond the Statutory Period of Punishment which is for Five Years.”
The Accused is charged Under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) and Section 132(5) of the and Section 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) read with Section 132(1)(i) and Section 132(5) of the Gujarat Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 and Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
The Accused here unauthorizedly Received and Utilized Input Tax Credit of INR 10.29 Crores by creating Shell Corporations and without any Invoices of Receipt or Supply of Goods.
The Applicant contested that he was Arrested without any Evidence where he was sent to Judicial Custody. Subsequently, his Bail Plea was Dismissed.
His main contention was that he runs a Business of Metal Scrap. Iron, etc. and it was Registered under the former Value Added Tax (VAT) Regime. Thereafter, Under Section 139 of Goods and Services Tax (GST), he was a Tax Paying Citizen.
Further, Officers found Iron Scrap Stock at his Business Premises which were supported by valid Documents and Invoices.
Contrary to Applicant’s statement, Respondent Authority stated that Ferrous-Scrap found at Applicant’s Premises was Unregistered, which is mandatory Under Section 35 of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST). Accordingly, Under Section 67 of the Act, Goods were Seized.
Referring to Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), [2021 1 SCC 40] in which Supreme Court Observed that while deciding Bail Application, consideration of ‘Delay in Concluding the Trial’ is a Relevant Factor.
The Case herein, the Court stated, “Taking into Consideration the Provisions of Law and the fact that the Commissioner is Empowered to recover the Due Amount and Propose for Abating the Proceedings and as the Trial will take its own time to Conclude, this Court finds this to be a fit Case where Discretion could be exercised in favour of the Applicant.”
Case No.: R/CR.MA/91/2022