Rajasthan High Court
Saurabh Jindal S/O Shri Satyendra ... vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14791/2022
Saurabh Jindal S/o Shri Satyendra Kumar, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o 152-153 Ii Floor, Pocket B-6, Sector 5 Rohini Delhi
( Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Intelligence Officer Directorate General
Of Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14792/2022
Yashik Jindal S/o Shri Mahadev Jindal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Ad-51, Preetampura, Delhi ( Presently Lodged In Central Jail
Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Intelligence Officer Directorate General
Of Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain, Adv.
Mr. D. P. Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla, Adv. with
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Boheti (CGST)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 15.12.2022
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 16.12.2022
1. The present bail applications have been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. arising out of Case File No.DGGI/NV/GST/808/2022-
GR-E O/O ADG-DGGI-JZU-JAIPUR of Directorate General of GST
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-14791/2022]
Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for the Offence under
Sections 132 (1) (c) (f) (h) & (1) of Central Goods & Service Tax
Act, 2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. They are
behind the bars since 14.09.2022. Learned counsel for the
petitioners also submits that complaint has been filed against the
petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
petitioners had not created fake firms. Main accused Dipanshu
Gupta was enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, who had availed the input tax credit. Learned counsel for
the petitioners also submits that offence against the petitioners is
triable by Magistrate, compoundable and having maximum
punishment of 5 years. Conclusion of trial may take long time.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no show
cause notices have been given to the petitioners. So, petitioners
be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:- (1) Ratnambar Kaushik, Vs. Union
Of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10319/2022
decided on 05.12.2022; (2) Dananjay Singh Vs. Union Of
India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.18825/2021 decided on 05.02.2022; (3) Suresh Jajra
Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.11477/2022 decided on 04.08.2022; (4)
Kamal Chand Bothra Vs. Union Of India in S. B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8954/2022 decided on
01.07.2022; (5) Hardeep Singh Banga Vs. State Of U. P.
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-14791/2022]
reported in [2021] 131 taxmann.com 54 (Allahabad); (6)
Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Vs. State reported in
[2020] 117 taxmann.com 280 (Karnataka); (7) Ritik Arora
Vs. Union Of India reported in [2022] 145 taxmann.com 59
(Rajasthan) and (8) Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs.
Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka reported in
[2019] 106 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and
submitted that petitioners are Director and Proprietor of Krishna
Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and M/s Grand Design, New
Delhi. They are responsible for tax evasion. Learned counsel for
the respondent also submitted that petitioners had taken Rs.11.30
Crores as input tax credit. Learned counsel for the respondent also
submitted that case of Dipanshu Gupta is not similar to the
petitioners because Dipanshu Gupta received only commission.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that in the
case of Vinay Kant Ameta, Hon'ble Apex Court had directed to him
to deposit Rs.200 Crores for granting bail. So, if this court directs
the petitioners to deposit loss of input tax credit of Rs.11.30
Crores, then, respondent shall not have objection for granting bail
to the petitioners, unless the bail filed by the petitioners, be
dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:- (1) Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar @
Polia & Anr. reported in 2019 (8) Supreme 732; (2) Vinay
Kant Ameta Vs. Union Of India in Criminal Appeal
No.60/2022[@ SLP [CRL.] No.9564/2021; (3) Ratnambar
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-14791/2022]
Kaushik Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.12475/2022 decided on 21.10.2022; (4)
Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India reported in 2011 0 Supreme
(Raj.) 69; (5) Tarun Tyagi Vs. Union of India in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2423/2015 decided on
31.03.2015; (6) Sumit Dutta Vs. Union of India in S.B.
Criminal Misc. 5th Bail Application No.12427/2022 decided
on 29.09.2022; (7) Mahendra Mangal Vs. Union of India &
Anr. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.13041/2021 decided on 07.09.2021; (8) Vinaykant
Ameta Vs. Union of India in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.18243/2021 decided on 07.12.2021; (9)
Ramchandra Vishnoi Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.13104/2021 decided on
06.12.2021 and (10) Sohan Singh Rao Vs. Union of India in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2555/2022 decided
on 24.03.2022.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the
respondent.
7. It is an admitted position that petitioners had evaded the tax
and got the benefit of input tax credit of Rs.11.30 Crores. Hon'ble
Apex Court while granting the bail to Vinay Kant Ameta directed to
him to deposit Rs.200 Crores.
8. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the
petitioners and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-14791/2022]
on bail with a condition to deposit Rs.2 Crores each by the
petitioners before the respondent Department as under protest.
9. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners
Saurabh Jindal S/o Shri Satyendra Kumar and Yashik Jindal
S/o Shri Mahadev Jindal shall be enlarged on bail provided each
of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all
the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
10. Trial court is directed to take the receipt of deposition of Rs.2
Crores on record from each of them before attesting bail bonds.
11. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/14-15
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
