High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8675/2025allowed

Manish Kumar v. Director General Of Gst Intelligence

2025-07-28Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar17 pages

#! !!$!%&$ '!()*+%%,& -%.&/

0 123

4 !$5%

#! !!$!%&$ '!()*+%%,& -%.&/

! !

#$ &'!4( 6 ' &4( !

4!($ &4( ! 0!

7$0&4( 7 &4( ! 0!123

! %'

! &'!"%%&$$+ 123

' 8% &'!',% ! !0$$+ "! ' &'!',%&$') ! !&" 7%&$')

8%&"9%"!!&.

) ,!

4%7! 8 !6:& 4% "

& .

) ;* )* 0!

) !! %%09 9( 0 5!! %!% !* <6(!&! 7 9!(5& !7!

) 0!00!!!!'2= 8 !5 >,!7'!7 ' & =7,!,%!9% ,! 0% > $$+?+>)?+>)/?3=3?

2$!; ?

4$$$+-. /.<+4>4 4*!"= %!'1= 1 9 !% $'!()*4& 1

!!@$')4A0 9% !'1= 1 91= 1

+ 0! !!

& %%6, ( 00% !!0(( 1 B!B!6%&+4'&)* !&0! )*&":9 4:&05!!&$$+& ,!

-%. = (7&05!!&$$+&$!,! -% .

) 7!! ,

8!%5& &%%,&! ! 6!( ! C%+(,.! '0)! 0! '),9% 6 !6% 2&3= = !!&! 69! +C'874 9%" 7% + 6! !!(% 0!4 !$5%6 !6 !! ! 976 % 9! !0! !

"-"

6 !6 2

!! ! 11 97 ) 0! ! ! 7! & 6 6!! 4 !$5% % ! , 6!9% 95!%%59,+ !

0!& , 9% 9! %4 !

$5%

2&! 6!' $')4!%$9,! -!70! 9!

0!,7$')9%%,6%%(!%! (6!!(! (,&6% 0! !,9!$')(6! 00!* %5

!! (%0*! ,00!* %5 !!9

/!'!% ! ! $') !,! ! !95 0!

6%% !0!0%0%960!% <6(!& 5%(!!0!6!0!( 0!

) 0!

6! 7, , ,%6 % !!

) D%!(!6!* 6 0!

C! !& !'=&2 $')46!(9%,&!%, 0!0& (0!!'1= $')4 4%%5& !%8!+!)* 8+(!%!>

11?

$')

%! *%9%5&! ' $')4& %%9 0 !%5 (%(,( 4 !!%!95 8+&9!,>

"*"

$')1=

*0%, ,!!! &6 !0%%995 0! C! !& !!!!!'3 $')4 9,! % !&6 %500!, !% (%9%, 0!

C! ! !& 0! 95 !!

<6(!&0!% D !!6% ! 9*!0! !,( 0% ! % 59 0% /%5& (, %!5 0% E 0! ! 6%% 4

!$5%& %0!06%9!(95, ! !

/! % ! !0$$+ 9 0!!(%(!% 5 (! 9 7! ! '* E! 1 !!& % 95 0*!95,!,9!$')9%%

!, !! 0!&2 E97&24)!& #!+&11"4>!& 0 %0% 9%0 & !7& %00%00!6!!(! C! !&6(! 9,! (% !$')!,!9, *?0!% ) &%! 56!0%%5!95 0!6 ! '* E!

!(!& 0!4 !$5%& (%!5 ,6!%%5!(95 ! 6 !%5, !9%% <% 9! ! 0! !6!7 6 % != 2 F 6 /%5&

"&"

%5, :, !!95 <A9%'0! !Sandeep Goyal vs. Union of India 2020 (36) GSTL 497,%!%9 (, E ! ! 0, !!& *, 99% 0! 5%%6 % 6 0!6 ( )! !00! &%! % %!!! :, !! State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran 2023(76) GSTL 146 (SC), PV Ramana Reddy vs. Union of India 2019(26) GSTL 175(SC), Subair T.B. vs. State of Kerala 2023(6) KLT 253 (Ker), Rajesh Gandhi vs. Union of India (@024) 23 Centax 319 (Telangana), Ashok Kumar vs. Commissioner 2020(4) GSTL 111(SC), Vimal Yashwantgiri Goswami vs. State of Gujarat 2020(106) UPTC 1681 (Guj DB), Basudev Mittal vs.

Union of India (2023) 2 Centax 291 (Chhattisgarh), Anush Kumar Gangwani vs. Union of India (2024) 14 Centax 274 (Chhattisgarh), Vikas Goel vs. CGST Commissionerate 2019(22) GSTL 191(P&H), Jatinder Manro vs. DGGI 2020(371) ELT 137 (P&H), Basudev Mittal vs. Union of India(2023) 2 Centax 295 (SC), Sanjay Dhingra vs. DGGI CRM<M<50256<2019 decided on 23.01.2020, Nigammadda Prasad vs. CBI 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 690 (SC), YS Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI 2013(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 108 (SC) 4> State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar 2017(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 175 (SC).

+ ( !%!%! 0!0! !! 6 !9%

& %%6,!!6095 !

"$"

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court finds force in the arguments out forth by the petitioner. However, in order to test the veracity of the same, the relevant data requires to be solicited to conduct a logic based, empirical analysis.

As such, the following officers listed below:

1. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Panchkula Zone

2. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Chandigarh Zone

3. ADG, Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, Ludhiana Zonal Unit

4. ADG, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram Zonal Unit

5. ADG, Directorate General of GST, Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit

6. Taxation Commissioner, Punjab

7. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana

8. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh are directed to furnish the following information by means of an affidavit, by the next date of hearing:

(i) Number of complaints under Section 132 of the Act filed since 2017.

(ii) Number of trials concluded in the said complaints as well as the number of convictions made therein.

(iii) Number of show cause notices under Sections 73/74 of the Act issued in cases pertaining to an amount over Rs. 5 crores. (iv) Number of show cause notices dropped without adjudicating upon the matter and initiating criminal proceedings under Section 132 of the Act.

(v) Number of arrests made after issuance of notice under Sections 73/74 of the Act."

8!6!, E! !:&6%9 005 0!(0!9( !!&95 (%95 B! B!6%& +4'& )* !& 0! )*&":9

#5"!0', &+4'&;*)* !& <!5 = <! %%77&+4'&;*)* !&. )!!!5& ,!

"%"

B,!'>,& !!%)*

$')

!%;*& ,!

4:&05!!&$$+& ,!

-%. (7&05!!&$$+&$!,! -%.

4( "5&05!!&$$+&/ -%

8. "!('

7 !&4 !$')&" 7%

) $')40!(!0! %*%9%5 !'=26%%!! %0!!*( !'1= G % ! !%%! 00%5( 56!,,& %!0!(! 0! 0 5! 4 ! B, 9 <A9% '0! ! Radhika Aggarwal vs. Union of India and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449& 0 ! %%5 6% 9 !5 % 0!,!'=&2 $')49!,! % 0!!'1= $')4 <6(!&*0% ! & 9! !9!0!(,%! ! '07, !, B':(

& %%6,6 0 "59.

However, relying upon the judgment in the case of Makemytrip (supra), it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, that the power under sub section (5) to Section 132 cannot be exercised unless the procedure under Section 73 of the GST Act is completed and an assessment order is passed quantifying the tax evaded or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed. According to us, this contention should not be accepted as a general or broad proposition. We would accept that normally the assessment proceedings would quantify the amount of tax evaded, etc. and go on to show whether there is any violation in terms of clauses (a) to (d) to sub<section (1) of Section 132 of the GST Acts and that clause (i) to sub<section (1) is attracted. But

"#"

there could be cases where even without a formal order of assessment, the department/Revenue is certain that it is a case of offence under clauses (a) to (d) to sub<section (1) of Section 132 and the amount of tax evaded, etc. falls within clause (i) of sub<section (1) to Section 132 of the GST Acts with sufficient degree of certainty. In such cases, the Commissioner may authorise arrest when he is able to ascertain and record reasons to believe. As indicated above, the reasons to believe must be explicit and refer to the material and evidence underlying such opinion. There has to be a degree of certainty to establish that the offence is committed and that such offence is non<bailable. The principle of benefit of doubt would equally be applicable and should not be ignored either by the Commissioner or by the Magistrate when the accused is produced before the Magistrate." 0

+ *& (9 95 !! ! 0! ) $') !, 6 0%

1 !,%5& &%5%!5( 9 '":9&<!5.)!!!5 ,!

0 , !

C! !& 0!%,, !'= 2 $')4!!((!56 +9%5!! !!(&!!!9, 6(!&6 !!!! &0!!!( C! !& !0 9

9% , 0!, 9 , !, & ! 00!0!%5 695 0!(95%% $$+:! '":9&<!5 ,!

G %!9% !E!0 (,& , %5 ! !& 0!% 7 9%5%! !,(%, !% !0!!5! !0%%!,5(6! !%,%9!5 0!0(

% !9%( ,!(5

0&%& 99!( (%( ! %:5 0!, $')4 ,%59, ,!!6 9%! 4%%6, , 76%!!99 5(,& !%%567 09% :0 !(!& ! !0 %6 0!% ,! 0%!'1= $')4 0!!! 9% 0!!E'=2 $')4& !, '":9&<!56%%.)!!!5 ,!

5 0 5 0!9% 4 &6%9 , ! : % 0!, , ! 9%56 !,! %5%!% 1=

) 0! 0%5 95 !0 % 6 !,(! 0!!9% 95%6 ) $')4 %! %(0! 9,5! !0 :5 % +0!& !0!!5, 9!0!!&!(95 *0%9%!,5! ! 5

<6(!& ,,& !00! !%6 !,5 "!

0& !0, %9!0 ,%,! %0! (95!,%5!! 5 !00! !( %!,!0!0 !(!& 0!%, %,%9%%5!,0 !, 05!% !!

4!% 1 +9%!!0!9% ! 05 %,%6%%9,6%% !0

"'"

) ,& <H9%'0! ! !! !, 05!% !4!% 1 +& %0! %:!0!sine qua non !0!0! ! : + 9 @!%A ! 0 (,&E!5&!%&00%&!(!!% (!5 , ,6 %(! %! C! !

%%&!%6 0!90!( %9!5*0 !, 0!! !9%&!: 0!(6% !(% %!, !4!% 1 + 8 5&!% 0!%%9!5 *&!, :%0!&9( <6(!& 0! 0!(0,!%9 *(%5%,& !,! !4!% 1 +6% 0%5 1

4(!, % !* 0!& 0!

(95!3 156 %9%0!,! 9 !% ) %!0!!'1=!

(now Section 193 BNSS) 0!E 0! 4 %5& ! ,0! !,(! %* 9:!!

9 ) D !!0!95 %!'!% ! !%6*!0! !,(! ! 1

!!%50,!

+ 97!0& %%6,E!9! ! !:: 0!!(!5

'Whether an accused can be denied the concession of bail in a complaint under Section 132 of the CGST Act, on account of pending investigation qua another accused?'

+!%6 !9% 9E

(%%5&9 0!%!9 % !,!0% :, !!956B,9 <A9%'0! !Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and another (2001) 4 SCC 280&6 !07, !, B "

' & %%6, 60 "8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations.

It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not excepted, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." <6(!&0 9795 %!% ! !0 0!, 9,! !,%!9%(,E !59% 8 5& %!0!E 0! %!590! !

9:, 0!%,!!, >6 !!, !

(, 0! !0 ( ! %5 5 0!0! 0! C! !&! %!6 5

!! 0! 9 , E 6 (,0, + !6 !%5 !! ,! ! ! ' 3 $')4& !0 *0% %5(,6%%5 !

4%%5&6 % 09%5( 0!, 9%,,& !9 !5%!(&6 !%!5 (%9%6 (,,,5&%% 0!6! % !0 4 & !0 0!,6 (!%, 6 + (& !, 9:(!!:59% , % !0! 9 0! !%5 ,! (,!0!,!E > , 99!, ! ,, !% 0! 6% !% (,I !!& 9!70 !

5 %5 /%5& :, Sandeep Goyal (supra) , 9%0!6 (,6 0,E 9%00% % 1

>9&95 !(!5!& 0 ! 'A % 9%5 476%,, ! ,!(5& (,, ,!E006 06!9% ! modus operandi !6!,%, <6(!&0!!,( (,,,50! %!, 4 :!&6%90!9% 7!! 0!( :, !!95 6B,9 <A9%'0! ! Vineet Jain vs. Union of India Criminal Appeal no.2269 of 2025 (Arising out

"-"

of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.4349 of 2025)+07, !, B49 5'

7& 9!( %%6,!,!, !!!6 !,!,! 9%!, $')4 "

The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents We are surprised to note that in a case like this, the appellant has been denied the benefit of bail at all levels, including the High Court and ultimately, he was forced to approach this Court. These are the cases where in normal course, before the Trial Courts, the accused should get bail unless there are some extra ordinary circumstances." 4%%5&!

%%90% :, !! 956B,9 <A9%'0! !Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40&6 !6 % 9%9 !%5 (6(!5 ) !, 9 !, 05!%96 95(!4!% 1 + '07, !, B< / 0%%6 "43. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons.

Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence.

"*"

completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

44.

This Court, in the case of State of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 381 : 2011(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 116 : (2011)1 SCC 784, has stated :

"15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille. xxx xxx xxx

39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds : The primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer ; the secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.

40.

The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court . The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court , whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.

41.

This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR

"&"

1978 Supreme Court 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non

bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing.

xxx xxx xxx 46.

We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

C! ! %%& !%5& Ashutosh Garg vs. Union of India Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8740/2024, <A9%'0! !

,!9% !6 ! ! '* E! = !!+0)*!95!, 327! &,%, 5 3 6%% * 0 !'1= $')4 5! 46B,9 <A9%'0! !Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India (2023) 2 SCC 671&%9!0 %!,%5 !5%!! (6%% 0!%,!% !0!,*( ! $')4&6 ! !,92 5&0%%6 "6. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5

"$"

years and fine. The petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner if released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of the present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witnesses, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner.

7. Hence, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court, which among others, shall also include the condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner to diligently participate in the trial. It is further directed that the petitioner be produced before the trial Court forthwith, to ensure compliance of this order." 0

+(6 9(& !

%, 0%!'1= $)4 9 9%&%%5 ,! (, ! 0, E C! ! !& %! % ! !0 % !(! 0! ( % (%%50! (, !(!& ( !5 %! ! & 6 %!5 0 (,,,5

4!,%5&9 9( 0!%%6 0! %54 ! $5% !! !95 !%!,%!9%&9: !! ,9%9?!59&

"%"

!0(%5& !! <6(!& 9% %% %99: %%6,

) 5 %%0 !00!&5&9! %! !%!I

9) 5 %%0!!%6 7,5!5 :! I

) 5 %% 0! 6 0! ( 95 ,!0!!D, 6!,!%I

) 5 %%05 !0!0!5! ! ? 06 5 (9%!6

!%!(,I > ,9!( !9( %%9!*0! 0 ! ! % 50!: !% ) !%!%!0!6 !%6 ! =

>%5& 0! 0! (,E 5 !& !06%%9%9!500! !!%!!!& !%!6%%9 6%%6 !, % !9%

", %% 00% & 5& %% % 0

40 05 !!90% %

( #'%'& !07,?! J?> !!0!9% J?>