Single judge bail application by Moti Sah, accused in a GST case involving two companies, where the petitioner never participated in GST registration or return filing while imprisoned; single judge granted bail.
Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2278 of 2019
Moti Sah @ Moti Shaw. ... .Petitioner Versus
Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---------For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Pasari, Advocate : Mr. Nilanjan Sen, Advocate : Mr. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate For the State : APP. -----
16/28.11.2019 Heard the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2018, G.R. No. 955 of 2018.
It has been alleged that M/s Saha Enterprises had taken registration on the basis of various documents and the said Firm was found to be non- existent. It has been alleged that Input Tax Credit of Rs.24.46 crores was encashed by the said Firm.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for registration under GST, a person must be physically present but it is an admitted fact that he was never present. Learned counsel while referring to the counter affidavit has stated that the fact about the absence is further substantiated at paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit. Learned counsel submits that it was Sandeep Khawala who had presented himself and the allegation is that after getting the migration from VAT to GST, GST return was never filed. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Section 134 of GST Act, no sanction has been obtained from the Commissioner, which was a prerequisite of taking cognizance. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 28.9.2018 and the case is triable by Magistrate and so far as the punishment under the GST Act is concerned, the maximum punishment which can be imposed is five years.
Learned A.P.P. has referred to various objections filed by him.
It appears to be an admitted fact that the petitioner was never present when the GST return was done. Apart from that, petitioner seems to have remained in custody for one year two months.
Regard being had to the aforesaid fact, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only), with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in connection with Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No. 351 of 2018, G.R. No. 955 of 2018.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a GST offence where he remained in custody for over a year without filing returns.
Whether the requirement of physical presence under GST mitigation rules bars grant of bail.
Whether magisterial court has jurisdiction to handle offences under the CGST Act involving imposition of penalty.
Moti Sah @ Moti Shaw
The State of Jharkhand
Vishal Lakra
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
