Income Tax Case

GAHC010098462022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1393/2022 YOUDHISTRA BHAMA S/O SRI BALWAN BHAMA, R/O HOUSE NO.35-A, BONGAON NEAR INCOME TAX RESIDENTIAL COLONY, BELTOLA, P.S.-BASISTHA, PIN-781022, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFOREHON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKANORDER 25.05.2022 By way of this second pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, p etitioner, namely, Sri Youdhistra Bhama, has sought for pre-arrest bail in the event of hisarrest in connection with Basistha PS Case No. 180/2022, registered under Sections120(B)/420/468/471 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Also perused the record and the documents annexed. As a new ground in the second pre-arrest bail application, it is contended that thepetitioner has paid all kinds of goods and service taxes to the Government, in the nameof the Company, M/s Jai Maa Coal Pvt. Ltd in the month of January, 2022, under GST,which was also accepted by the Government, but he has not been provided the certificateregarding bill dues of February, 2022, by the Central Excise Service Tax and GST, CST,Guwahati, contending that same will be provided if the Hon’ble High Court directs to doso. Further, it is stated that after inspection/verification of documents relating to GSTby the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, no illegality in the record was found, exceptsome omission displaying its GSTN. The authority has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 125 of the CGST Act and Rules, 2017. It is also submitted that in the connected Basistha PS Case No. 211/2022, withsimilar accusations, the petitioner and his wife have been granted the interim pre-arrestbail, considering the pregnancy of the wife of the petitioner. Similar privilege has alsobeen sought for in the present case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor raised objection against such bail prayer,as there is sufficient incriminating material against the accused petitioner in the CaseDiary, which this Court has already gone through. It is also submitted that the matterrelates to creating fictitious supply chain through generation of fake invoices and e-waybills since long, which is under scrutiny of investigation and the allegation does notrelate only to the payment of tax. I have heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties. Obviously, the present matter not only relates to evading the payment of tax underCGST, but making of forged/fictitious documents of supply by the petitioner, whileconducting their business affairs. The case has been registered under Section 468/471 IPC, along with other sections of law, which is distinct and separate from the offence(non-payment of tax) under CGST. Considering the serious complicity of the petitioner, this Court on perusal of the Case Diary already found that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail.Now, only on the ground of making payment of tax and an interim bail has been grantedin another case, cannot be a good ground to revisit the earlier order. There being no anymerit in the present petition, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant