Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and also the heavy loss to the Government Exchequer, the bail application of applicant is hereby rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Bail ---The applicant file bail application for the offences under Sections 132(1)(1) and 132(1)(b) r/w 132(1)(i) of the Act. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of five years. The applicant is the proprietor of the firm while business of the firm is being managed by the Manager and is in effective control of the manager. The applicant was arrested on 19.01.2021. The applicant had always been cooperating with the investigation and enquiry of the case and never tried to abscond. Out of the alleged seized goods, the admitted duty which was payable by the applicant's firm Rs. 3.53 crores. The rest figures are imaginary and assumptive. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant on account of clandestine removal of finished goods without issuance of any invoice, without payment of any applicable duties, have evaded duties amounting Rs. 62,10,28,165/- which is more than Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. The court observed that the applicant is the proprietor of the company and is responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company, even if the business is being managed by the so-called manager.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail application.
Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and also the heavy loss to the Government Exchequer, the bail application of applicant is hereby rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017—Bail ---The applicant file bail application for the offences under Sections 132(1)(1) and 132(1)(b) r/w 132(1)(i) of the Act. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case. The alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment of five years. The applicant is the proprietor of the firm while business of the firm is being managed by the Manager and is in effective control of the manager. The applicant was arrested on 19.01.2021. The applicant had always been cooperating with the investigation and enquiry of the case and never tried to abscond. Out of the alleged seized goods, the admitted duty which was payable by the applicant's firm Rs. 3.53 crores. The rest figures are imaginary and assumptive. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant on account of clandestine removal of finished goods without issuance of any invoice, without payment of any applicable duties, have evaded duties amounting Rs. 62,10,28,165/- which is more than Rs. 5,00,00,000/-. The court observed that the applicant is the proprietor of the company and is responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company, even if the business is being managed by the so-called manager.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the bail application.