Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had no role to play in the tax evasion as he was only a servant for the domestic help of the proprietor of the company, let notice of motion be issued to respondents for 27.09.2021.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Bail – The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner was only a domestic servant of one, who was overall incharge of the Company and the petitioner was nowhere concerned with the tax evasion. The learned trial Court had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2021 subject to furnishing of bail bonds of Rs. One Crore with two sureties of like amount and also bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs. Sixty Lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 25.05.2021 directed the learned trial Court to pass fresh order. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide order dated 31.05.2021 again fixed the amount as Rs. 50,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount and bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition imposed by the trial Court for grant of bail was not only excessive but also harsh. The court observed that the petitioner had no role to play in the tax evasion as he was only a domestic servant of the proprietor of the company.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to respondents for 27.09.2021.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had no role to play in the tax evasion as he was only a servant for the domestic help of the proprietor of the company, let notice of motion be issued to respondents for 27.09.2021.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Bail – The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner was only a domestic servant of one, who was overall incharge of the Company and the petitioner was nowhere concerned with the tax evasion. The learned trial Court had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2021 subject to furnishing of bail bonds of Rs. One Crore with two sureties of like amount and also bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs. Sixty Lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who vide order dated 25.05.2021 directed the learned trial Court to pass fresh order. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide order dated 31.05.2021 again fixed the amount as Rs. 50,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount and bank guarantee/FDR for an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the condition imposed by the trial Court for grant of bail was not only excessive but also harsh. The court observed that the petitioner had no role to play in the tax evasion as he was only a domestic servant of the proprietor of the company.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to respondents for 27.09.2021.