The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a businessman, Dhiraj Nath Gupta, who was accused of orchestrating a massive Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud involving more than Rs 32 crore. The court order, passed by Justice Sameer Jain on October 16, highlighted that the prosecution's case is based entirely on documentary evidence, making a prolonged trial likely.
Court's Reasoning for Granting Bail
In its detailed order, the bench observed that since the entire case of the prosecution rests on documentary evidence, the argument put forth by the accused's counsel that the trial would take a considerable amount of time held significant weight. The court referenced several judgments from the Supreme Court in similar matters while arriving at its decision to grant bail.
Arguments from Both Sides
The bail plea was filed in a case registered under specific sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, namely Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(C), and 132(1)(i).
The defence counsel, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, vehemently argued that the allegations of creating shell companies to avail and pass on input tax credit of approximately Rs 32 crore were baseless and false. He further emphasized that all the alleged offences are triable by a magistrate and carry a maximum punishment of five years. With the investigation already complete, he contended that there was no justification for further detention of the accused.
Opposing the bail, Dhananjay Awasthi, representing the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), labeled the accused as a dishonest businessman who had fraudulently availed the substantial input tax credit. However, the prosecution counsel could not dispute the factual arguments presented by the defence regarding the nature of the evidence and the anticipated duration of the trial.
Conclusion and Outcome
After considering all facts, circumstances, and the precedent set by the apex court, Justice Sameer Jain concluded that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. This ruling underscores the judicial principle of considering the nature of evidence and the potential length of trial in bail adjudications, especially in complex financial fraud cases.
