2019 (1) TMI 550 – DELHI HIGH COURT – TMI – Cancellation of petitioner's bail – the sole ground for cancellation of the petitioner’s bail is the impression given to the Sessions Court that the quantum of tax evasion involved is not ₹ 4.58 crores but ₹ 85 crores – Held that:- It is evident that the order cancelling the petitioner’s bail does not proceed on the basis of the quantum of tax evasion involved but on the basis that the petitioner has attempted to intimidate witnesses whom he had made dummy directors/proprietors in certain companies/firms – this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in order dated 22.12.2018 made by the Sessions Court cancelling the petitioner’s bail; and that, the petitioner having misused and abused the liberty granted to him, is not entitled to the benefit of bail, at this stage – application dismissed. – BAIL APPLN. No. 3086/2018 & CRL.M. (BAIL) No. 2003/2018 & CRL.M.A. No. 50762/2018 Dated:- 28-12-2018 – MR. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHAN
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ereafter, a second application seeking cancellation of bail was moved, which the Sessions Court has allowed vide its order dated 22.12.2018. According to the petitioner however, the ground taken for cancellation of bail in the first application and the second application are discordant; the offence alleged against the petitioner is of tax evasion. The petitioner also says that under Section 132(4) and (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 mere evasion of tax is a non-cognizable and bailable offence; (iii) that the sole ground for cancellation of the petitioner s bail is the impression given to the Sessions Court that the quantum of tax evasion involved is not ₹ 4.58 crores but ₹ 85 crores, which is false and baseless. In support of this the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the first bail cancellation application filed by the respondent where in para 5 the numbers 8 and 5 have been inserted in handwriting, which according to the petitioner is a
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to have indulged in tax evasion/ wrongful availment or passing of input tax credit. Such statements, which are part of the record of the investigation which is still underway, have also been shown to the Court. 5. Upon a closer look at the figures inserted in para 5 referred to above, it appears to the Court that the figure so inserted in handwriting is not 85 but 8.5 . Whether the amount mentioned is ₹ 85 crores or ₹ 8.5 crores is, however, irrelevant since under Section 132(1)(i) in a case where the amount of tax evaded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized exceeds ₹ 5 crores, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine. 6. In any case, it is evident that the order cancelling the petitioner s bail does not proceed on the basis of the quantum of tax evasion involved but on the basis that the petitioner has attempted to intimidate witnesses whom he had made dummy directors/proprietors in certain companies
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =