Central Excise Case No.

37/2019

In The Court of Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate

Applicant Age Occupation

1) Abhishek Dhirendra Sinh 25 Business

2) Harshvardhan Dhirendra Sinh

Both Residing at: W 402, Riowesta,

Opp. Tube Co., Akota, Vadodara.

3) Paresh Chimanlal Thakkar

Residing at: C-104, Ratnadeep Flats,

Nr. M.M.Vora Showroom, Soma Talav,

Dabhoi-Vaghodiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

Versus

Respondent

Superintendent, Central Goods And Service Dept.,

First Floor, G.S.T. Bhavan, Subhanpura, Vadodara.

Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The present applicants submit the bail application before the

Hon’ble Court as follows:

1) That the respondent of the present case has arrested the

present applicants after calling them in their office on
24/05/2019 using their powers and alleging upon them to
have committed offence under section 132(1)(c) and section
132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

1
 Upon producing the present applicants before the Hon’ble
Court on the same day, the present applicants have been
ordered to take into judicial custody. Therefore, the present
application has been filed to pass an order to grant bail on
appropriate conditions. Further details of which are as
follows:
2) It is the case of the complainant that inquiry and investigation
was carried on 01/02/2019 in the Mesars Manpasand
Beverages Company regarding Input tax credit and certain
documentary evidences and Hard disk were taken into
custody in the Panchnama. The departmental inquiry has
been taken up for the same by the respondents. The present
applicants were served a summons to remain present before
them under section 70 of the G.S.T. Act on 23/05/2019 and
also to remain present at 5:00 o’clock in the evening on
23/05/2019 to cooperate in the inquiry. According to the
summons, the present applicants remained present before the
respondents of the present case on 23/05/2019 but they
arrested them by way of misusing their powers given to them
under section 69 of the G.S.T. Act alleging them to have
committed offence under section 132(1)(c) and section
132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
and produced before the Hon’ble Court.
3) The present applicants are totally innocent and have not
committed any of the offence or illegal acts so alleged.
4) The respondent of the present case is an officer employed
under the Central goods and Service Tax and doing inquiry
on the tax liability of the company named Manpasand
Beverages Limited using the powers vested under this Act.
Though the inquiry is not yet completed and the tax liability
has not been decided, the present accused have been

2
 wrongfully arrested by issuing summons to remain present
and cooperate in the inquiry.
5) As per the allegations made by the complainant, the company
responsible for the tax, namely Manpasand Beverages
Limited had made certain selling and also paid the tax for the
same. Later on, it has been alleged that offence has been
committed by way of getting input credit by getting the bill
without purchasing the goods from few companies.
6) The case of the complainant depends upon the documentary
evidences which are in possession of the complainant
himself. Therefore there is no question of hampering the
evidence of the complainant.
7) Manpasand Beverages is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act. The plant machinery and factory of which is
within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court. The said company
has a turn over more than the alleged tax liability and also
possesses movable as well as immovable property.
8) Manpasand Beverages Company has the registration
regarding the Goods and Service Tax since many years and is
paying the tax on regular basis. There is no tax liability of the
company left unpaid apart from the one alleged in the
complaint.
9) The departmental inquiry regarding the tax liability alleged in
the complaint has not been completed and the payable tax
amount is also remained undecided. Taking into
consideration these circumstances, the arrest made at this
stage is a premature arrest.
10) The present applicant no.2, the Director of the Manpasand
Beverages Company is not responsible according to the
G.S.T. Act. Paying tax of Manpasand Beverages Company is
also not the responsibility of applicant no.2. The applicant

3
 no.3 is working as a Chief Finance Officer and manages
accounts in the said company. The present applicant is a
salaried employee of the company. The Account department
fulfills their part of responsibilities taking into account the
information provided by the Purchase and Sale department
regarding the Purchase and Sale of the company. The
applicant no. 3 is not responsible for the company’s financial
as well as tax liability. Taking decisions regarding business
or finance of the company is also not the responsibility of the
present applicants.
11) There is no allegation against the present applicants to have
committed any offence bearing punishment of life
imprisonment or death.
12) The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the
judicial proceedings regarding the charges made against the
present applicants.
13) The present applicants are living at the address mentioned
above and doing business/service. The movable as well as
immovable property of the present applicant and family
members are situated in Baroda city only, hence there is no
question of us running away.
14) The present applicants are giving assurance to follow all the
conditions laid down by the Hon’ble Court.
15) It is humbly requested,
1) To grant bail to the present applicants for the offence
committed under section 132(1)(i) of the Central goods
and Service Tax Act, 2017 upon appropriate conditions
accepting a reasonable amount of bail-bond.
2) To send a copy of this order to the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Vadodara and the respondent.

4
 3) To pass any other order which the Court may deem fit.

Hence, presenting the bail application.

Vadodara.
Dt.27/05/2019

(Advocate on behalf of Applicants)

5
Order for the Bail Application instituted in File No. IV/16-
Prev/37/Manpasand/18-19 for the arrest made for committing
offence under section 132(1)(c) and section 132(1)(i) of the
Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 of the accused no. (1)
Abhishek Dhirendrasinh, (2) Harshvardhan Dhirendrasinh
and (3) Paresh Chimanlal Thakkar

(1) Read the ingredients of the Application and the complaint.

Submissions made by advocate on behalf of the applicant
accused, Mr. S. H. Patel and advocate on behalf of the
complainant, Mr. Anil Desai.
(2) It is the case of the Complainant that for the purpose of
getting Input Credit in the tax paid under the Central Goods
and Service Tax, though there was no import-export of
goods, by making fake vouchers and invoice and by creating
a bogus firm; the accused have received a credit of Rs.17.78
crores and committed a Non-bailable offence under section
132(1)(c) and section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and
Service Tax Act.
(3) Facts of the Bail Application of the applicant/accused are that
the accused has not committed any offence or illegal act. The
accused had remained present in front of the complainant
whenever called upon for giving the statement by the
respondent and also cooperated in the investigation. But they
have wrongfully involved the accused under section
132(1)(c) and section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and
Service Tax Act by misusing their powers. Inquiry is being
carried on by the officers and despite the fact that the tax
liability of the accused is not yet decided, the accused has
been wrongfully arrested. It has been further stated that the
Manpasand Beverages Company has been incorporated under

6
 the Companies Act and doing production of various drinks
and has huge turn over as well as movable and immovable
properties and pays taxes regularly. Further stated that it is
not the responsibility of the applicant no. 2 to pay the tax.
The applicant no.3 is working as a Chief Finance Officer and
manages the Account Department and thus a salaried
employee of the company and thus it is also not his
responsibility to pay the tax of the company nor to take any
decision regarding business or finance of the company. The
offence being alleged upon the accused does not involve life
imprisonment or death. The present Court has the jurisdiction
to try this case and the accused is not a person who will run
away and is ready and happy to fulfill all the conditions put
by the Hon’ble Court. Hence it is a humble request to acquit
the accused on bail.
(4) Advocate on behalf of the applicant, Mr. S. H. Patel has
submitted that the Manpasand Beverages Company has been
incorporated under the Companies Act and if the case of the
complainant is taken into consideration then it can be found
that the company has purchased the goods but it does not
have the transportation bill but still the inquiry is going on
and the accused were called for giving his statement and then
arrested. The accused has not committed the alleged offence
and they will not run away because the company is still
running and they are also cooperating in the investigation.
The Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to grant bail to the
accused for charges framed against them. It has been further
stated that Hon’ble Joint Commissioner has granted bail to
the accused in similar cases i.e. under section 132(1)(c) on a
condition of depositing 10% of the payable tax amount.
Furthermore the accused is ready and happy to fulfill all the

7
 conditions that the Hon’ble Court will put and hence a
humble request to grant bail to the accused.
(5) D.G.P. Anil Desai for the Complainant has submitted that if
the case of the complainant is taken into consideration then
the accused has done financial damage to the government by
getting credit of the G.S.T. amount by way of making fake
invoice and by creating bogus/dummy firm. It has been found
from the primary investigation that they have got the credit of
more than Rs.17.78 crores and still the investigation is going
on. There are chances that this amount may increase. It has
been found by the investigation made by the inquiry officer
that the accused had ordered the other co-accused to delete
the data stored on their computer and also to hamper the
evidence. It has been further stated that the submission made
by the accused in this case that Hon’ble Joint Commissioner
has granted bail to the accused in similar cases on a condition
of depositing 10% of the payable tax amount but it is
nowhere written in the law that the accused must be granted
bail after paying this amount. The Hon’ble Joint
commissioner has granted bail to them after taking into
consideration the circumstances of the case using his power
under subsection 3(b) of section 69. But there is no provision
in the law that they must be granted bail and the inquiry is
still going on in the present case and it will create a wrong
impression in the society if the accused will be granted bail.
Thus, taking into consideration all these circumstances and
also the seriousness of the offence, it is humbly requested to
reject the bail application of the present accused.
(6) Taking into consideration the facts presented in this case, it is
the allegation upon the accused to get the input credit of
Rs.17.78 crores of the G.S.T. amount by way of making fake

8
invoice and creating bogus/dummy firm without any kind of
transportation of the goods. The tax received by the
government is used for the welfare of the citizens. And there
is an allegation upon the accused of the present case to get
the input credit by way of making fake invoice after making
wrongful plans to get back the legally payable tax amount
and found a way not to pay the tax. This is called White
Collar Crime and financial crime tends to harm the nation.
The government by introducing this Act has implemented
one country one tax and it investigates those who do tax
robbery by way of making fake invoice and vouchers. It has
been found in the investigation of the present case that the
accused are involved in tax robbery by way of making bogus
invoice as well as by creating bogus/dummy firm. Infact,
there is no satisfactory argument made upon a point that the
accused is guilty under this act. It is the only submission
made that the present offence bears an imprisonment of five
years and the accused is not the person who will run away
and thus it is heavily argued that the present accused should
be granted bail. It is not acceptable to say that as the offence
committed bears a punishment of imprisonment of five years
and that is why bail should be granted to the present accused.
But I believe that the nature of the offence committed by the
accused should be taken into account. Further, the inquiry is
still pending as is evident from the bail application of the
accused and as per the case of the complainant there is a
possibility that the amount of tax robbery may increase. Also
the submission made by the Complainant cannot be ignored
that there is a possibility of hampering of evidence by the
accused and I believe that this should also be taken into
consideration while deciding this application. I further

9
 believe that it will give motivation to these kinds of activities
if the charge containing the allegations made against the
accused is taken lightly. Taking into consideration all this
facts, I do not find it reasonable to grant bail to the present
accused and hence pronouncing final order as follows.

-: Order :-

(1) The bail application of accused no.1. Abhishek

Dhirendrasinh, accused no. 2. Harshvardhan dhirendrasinh
and accused no. 3. Paresh Chimanlal Thakkar is hereby
rejected.

The present order dated 29/05/2019 is declared and read in an

open court.

Date: 29/05/2019 (Jaikumar Gulabray Vadodariya)

Vadodara Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Vadodara.
GJ 00341

10