Bombay HC refuses to grant Pre-Arrest Bail on an Offence under Maharashtra GST Act while considering Nature of Accusation [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court (HC) refused to grant pre-arrest bail on GST offences under Maharashtra GST Council while considering the nature of accusation.

Bal Mukund Vaishnav, the applicant filed an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 132(1)(e), (1)(f) and 132(1)(iv) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The GST department noticed something suspicious about the working of the company by the name Sneheshwara Enterprises Private Limited. Sneheshwara Enterprises was run by two directors namely Dilkhush Abdul Jabbar and Vijay Singh Naruka. Accordingly, the witness summons came to be issued.

When the informant visited the premises, the said company was locked. On enquiry with the owner of the premises, it came to light that the owner never let out the premises on leave and license or rent to anybody named Dilkhush Abdul Jabbar or Vijay Singh Naruka.

The applicant submitted that the FIR was registered in the year 2019, he attended the Investigation Officer on as many as four occasions and co-operated with the investigation. It is submitted that the case rests on documentary evidence and the custody of the applicant is not required.

It was further submitted that Section 132(1)(f) of the said Act provides that whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences, namely falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information to evade payment of tax shall be punishable in terms of what is provided in sub-section (iv) of Clause (1) of Section 132 of the said Act.

It was submitted that for the alleged offence the maximum punishment provided is a sentence of imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a fine or with both. It is submitted that once the special statute like GST has prescribed the punishment for the offence punishable under the said Act, the provisions of the IPC then cannot be invoked.

The statement of the Chartered Accountant reveals that it is the applicant who had approached him for the work relating to the formation of the company. Justice M S Karnik held that “ based on the nature of the accusations, this is not a fit case to grant relief of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.” The anticipatory bail application was rejected. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates