The Supreme Court has recently held that the appellant has no liability to pre-deposit half the revenue loss, in the absence of a completed assessment to crystallize the tax liability to be released on bail.
The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital had rejected the anticipatory bail of the appellant.
Counsel for the appellant submits that since Section 132 (i) (iii) prescribes punishment for a term which may be extended to one year and the entire case is based on documentary evidence and other electronic evidence which are available on record, thus the appellant is not required for any custodial interrogation.
Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent-state opposed prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, in order to protect the interest of revenue, the appellant may be put to terms by directing him to deposit at least half of the GST revenue loss of Rs. 14.68 Crores to the state exchequer, by providing fake invoices to multiple forms which have been unearthed during investigation.
Counsel appearing for the appellant in reply submitted that there is no final assessment made under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and unless such determination is made, the appellant cannot be said to be under a legal liability to make any payment much less deposit any amount as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail.
The two-judge Top Court Bench noted that, “the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India/State had fairly stated that such a condition cannot be imposed while granting bail” from the order in Subhash Chauhan Vs Union of India [2023 TAXSCAN (SC) 111].
The Bench of the Supreme Court Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah also observed that “The same view has been reaffirmed by this court in another similar case, Criminal Appeal No. 523/2023, Anatbhai Ashokbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujrat & Ors.”
It was thus noted, “Facts of the present case being identical to the facts of the aforesaid two Criminal appeals, we see no reason to deviate from the view taken in the aforesaid two cases” and held that “Following the reasons given in the said judgment and orders, we are of the considered opinion that appellant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail without imposing any condition as suggested by Learned Additional Solicitor General.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
