Delhi HC granted bail to petitioner as detaining him in judicial custody would adversely affect business

Case Details: Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI - [2021] 132 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
  • Dr. G.K. Sarkar, Ms. Malabika Sarkar, Prashant Srivastava and Rajiv Tuli, Advs. for the Petitioner. Harpreet Singh for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was director in a company engaged in supply of services and also supplying solar inverters, solar power generating units and like products. The department alleged that the company of petitioner was involved in fraudulently availing ineligible/fake input tax credit as passed on by firms which were found to be non-existent. The summons were issued multiple times but the petitioner failed to appear before the authorities citing medical problems. He filed an application for Anticipatory Bail but it was rejected. Thereafter, he filed application for bail before the High Court and submitted that the allegations leveled against him were false and frivolous.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court observed that there cannot be any conflict with the fact that petitioner has been charged with economic offence. In the present case, the petitioner was accused of wrongfully utilizing the Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 72 Crores. However, it would be reiterated that the offence does not contemplate punishment for more than five years. Moreover, the offences under the GST Act are not grave to an extent where the custody of the accused can be held to be sine qua non. Also, the detention in judicial custody would affect business of petitioner. Therefore, it was held that bail application would be allowed since Anticipatory Bail is a statutory right and custodial interrogation is neither warranted nor provided for in GST law.