CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 42; GST statutory provision - Section 53; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439C; GST statutory provision - Section 482

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: While the challenged this calculation, the Department asserted that the calculation was made only for 16 months, whereas the evidence including the voluntary statement of Vishal Goyal , dated 15 /16.02.2021 and that of Avdhesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar’s Statement dated 01.01.2021, reflected that manufactur e of s ale and Gutka, was ongoing for nearly 36 months. Since Gutka is a banned activity, which was being carried out secretly, there were no purchase or sales records being maintained. The production and sales were thus, computed on a pro -rata basis using daily production capacity. Vishal Goyal had thus, committed acts, which came under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences under Section 132(5). Operative disposition: If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Crimin al Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P .C.‟), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/CGST, West Delhi challenging the Order dated 17.03.2021 of the learned CMM and seeking cancellation of Bail granted to Vishal Goyal, the Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.12.2020, an information was received about an unregistered unit of gutka factory running at CR place, Rohini, Sector 20, Delhi and that this unregistered Unit had more than 10 speed manufacturing machines, which were working 24x7 at the top floor of the premises and around 40 -50 labourers were working. The finished goods were being supplied to Chhattisgarh and Odisha. The raid was conducted under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 on 01.01.2021. During the search, the premises was found covered in dust, with a strong pungent smell emanating from several wall machines operating in the right-side hall on the second floor.

10. During the investigations, it was found that Vishal Goyal , the Respondent, had created a network of multiple Firms, including M/s Lambodar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd ., to launder money earned from illegal Gutka manufacturing and sales. 11. This was supported by the voluntary statement of Rohit Srivastava recorded on 12.01.2021 , who admit ted that Vishal Goyal had transferred Rs.13 Lakhs from Lambodar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd ., to his Axis Bank Account to help him to purchase a Creta car, which was meant for use and benefit of Avdhesh Yadav, who was operating the illegal Gutka Factory for Vishal Goyal. 12. As no bills or invoices were found, the Department applied the Best Judgment Assessment Clause.

16. The Department being aggrieved by th e Bail Order, has filed the present Petition to challenge the same on the ground that there was an evasion of duty of approximately Rs. 831.72 Crores in 16 months. The Bail had been granted within 29 days of custody despite the seriousness of the offense, considering that manufacturing and sale of Gutka was prohibited in Delhi. The Respondent owned the „Suhana Pasand‟ brand since Au gust 2011, with no proof of closure. In his voluntary Statement dated 15.02.2021 under Sections 70 and 174 of CGST Act 2017, he admitted to clandestine manufacturing and supply of Gutka with the assistance of Avdhesh Kumar Yadav and Sudheer Gupta.

Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751. Reliance has also been placed on the Case of Vinod Bhandari vs. State of M.P. , 2015 Cri. LJ 1547 and Ram Narain Popli vs. CBI, AIR 2003 SCC 3257. 22. Further, Reliance is also placed o n Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI , Criminal Appeal No. 728/2013 , decided on 09.05.2013; State of Maharashtra vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah ; Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. Appeal No.152/2013; K.I. Pavunny v s. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, 1997 (90) ELT 241 (S.C.); Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd.; Malwinder Mohan Singh vs. State of NCT of Delhi , decided on 10.08.2020 (DHC); Vimal Yashwant Giri Goswami vs.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

Suhana Pasand pouches were recovered during the search of his residence on 15.01.2021. The premises owner, Shri Ranbir Singh also knew Avdhesh Kumar, who had set up the factory for and on behalf of the Respondent. 17. It is submitted that considering the huge revenue involved, the liability of the Respondent, cannot be reduced unless evaded duty is repaid to the Government, which he had assured in his Statement dated 15.02.2021. 18. It is further submitted that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Respondent would tamper with evidence and create false evidence , if granted Bail. 19. The Respondent had absconded for over a month. His residence was searched on 15.01.2021 and his wife was summoned for 18.01.2021, but she claimed ignorance about his whereabouts.

Nadu, Crl. Appeal No. 152/2013, decided on 29.10.2020 wherein it was held that confessional S tatement made before an Officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53, can be a basis to convict a person under NDPS Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, no salutary purpose would be served by keeping the Respondent in Jail. 27. It is further contended that the alleged Tax evasion of Rs.831.72 Crores calculated by the Petitioner/Department, is absurd as it is ex-facie baseless and purely imaginative. The falsity of the figure is apparent from the alleged calculations made by the Petitioner/Department on assumptions, hunches, whims and fancies.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

23. It is, therefore, submitted that the Bail granted vide Order dated 17.03.2021, be recalled. 24. The Respondent in his Reply asserted that the present Petition for cancellation of Bail, is devoid of merits and is misplaced in law and is liable to be dismissed in limine. He denied all the allegations , averments made in the Application. 25. The preliminary submissions are that he had been enlarged on Bail vide Order dated 17.03.2021 of learned CMM, which is a well-reasoned and legally tenable Order and does not suffer from any illegal infirmity. While granting Bail, the learned CMM had considered his period of custody of almost one month and had also noted the figure of Rs.831.72 Crores as alleged by the Petitioner Department to be an imaginative figure.

This fact has also been recorded by the learned CMM in its Order dated 17.03.2021. 36. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Bail Application is without merits and is liable to be dismissed. Submissions heard and the record perused. 37. The P etitioner/CGST Delhi West seeks recall of the Order dated 17.03.2021 granting Bail to Respondent No.2 /Vishal Goyal on the grounds that, firstly, the offence is a serious economic offence involving clandestine manufacture and sale of banned gutka with alleged GST evasion of about Rs. 831.72 Crores. Secondly, the offence under Section 132 CGST Act is cognizable and non-bailable, and the learned CMM failed to appreciate the gravity and societal impact of the offence.

43. The circumstances and consideration of both is therefore, distinc t and must not be confused, when the Bail Order is sought to be recalled. The present case is of the former category wherein Bail granted vide Order dated 17.03.2021, is sought to be recalled on the ground of the discretion having been erroneously exercised in favour of the Respondent. 44. The learned CMM after due consideration of the relevant factors governing grant of Bail, has exercised the discretion judiciously. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 17.03.2021 shows that the learned CMM has taken note of the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the Respondent, the period of custody undergone, the stage of investigation and the material collected by the Department. 45. The contention of the Petitioner regarding the alleged duty evasion of Rs. 831.72 crores was expressly noted by the learned CMM, who found that prolonged incarceration was not warranted solely on the basis of such allegation, particularly when the computation was based on assumptions and the investigation was documentary in nature. 46. It ca nnot be overlooked that the evidence is essentially documentary/electronic and there is no likelihood of the same being tampered by the Respondent after having been admitted to Bail. There is nothing to show that he is a flight Risk or there is any likelih ood of his influencing the witnesses or tampering the evidence. 47. Furthermore, it cannot be ignored that the Bail was granted vide Order dated 17.0 3.2021 and there is no averment of any misuse or abuse of the

Operative decision and relief

14. While the challenged this calculation, the Department asserted that the calculation was made only for 16 months, whereas the evidence including the voluntary statement of Vishal Goyal , dated 15 /16.02.2021 and that of Avdhesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar’s Statement dated 01.01.2021, reflected that manufactur e of s ale and Gutka, was ongoing for nearly 36 months. Since Gutka is a banned activity, which was being carried out secretly, there were no purchase or sales records being maintained. The production and sales were thus, computed on a pro -rata basis using daily production capacity. Vishal Goyal had thus, committed acts, which came under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences under Section 132(5). 15. Respondent was arrested on 16.02.2021 with the Commissioner’s approval and thereafter, remanded to Judicial Custody. His Bail Application was allowed Bail vide Order dated 17.03.2021 by learned CMM, New Delhi.

If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irr elevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the court does not dwell upon the v iolation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the court.”

(vi) An appeal against grant of bail must not be allowed to be used as a retaliatory measure. Such an appeal must be confined only to the grounds discussed above.”

liberty of Bail as granted to the Respondent. Th ere is no ground which is existing to show that the discretion of grant of Bail has not been exercised judiciously by the learned CMM or that there is any misuse or abuse of liberty so granted by the Respondent. There is also nothing on record to show that the trial has been hampered on account of grant of Bail. 48. Thus, there is no merit in the present Petition for setting aside of the Bail Order dated 17.03.2021. 49. The Petition is hereby, dismissed along with pending Applications(s), if any.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal concerns issue and context: while the challenged this calculation, the department asserted that the calculation was made only for 16 months, whereas the evidence including the voluntary statement of vishal goyal , dated 15 /16.02.2021 and that of avdhesh kumar and manoj kumar’s statement dated 01.01.2021, reflected that manufactur e of s ale and gutka, was ongoing for nearly 36 months. since gutka is a banned activity, which was being carried out secretly, there were no purchase or sales records being maintained. the production and sales were thus, computed on a pro -rata basis using daily production capacity. vishal goyal had thus, committed acts, which came under section 132(1)(a) of the cgst act read with section 20 of the igst act, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences under section 132(5). operative disposition: if in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in CRL.M.C. 1242/2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: While the challenged this calculation, the Department asserted that the calculation was made only for 16 months, whereas the evidence including the voluntary statement of Vishal Goyal , dated 15 /16.02.2021 and that of Avdhesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar’s Statement dated 01.01.2021, reflected that manufactur e of s ale and Gutka, was ongoing for nearly 36 months. Since Gutka is a banned activity, which was being carried out secretly, there were no purchase or sales records being maintained. The production and sales were thus, computed on a pro -rata basis using daily production capacity. Vishal Goyal had thus, committed acts, which came under Section 132(1)(a) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, which are cognizable and non-bailable offences under Section 132(5). Operative disposition: If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into… Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 42; GST statutory provision - Section 53; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439C; GST statutory provision - Section 482—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 42; GST statutory provision - Section 53; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439C; GST statutory provision - Section 482 and the decision date 2026-01-12; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is CGST, Delhi West v. Vishal Goyal, the proceeding is CRL.M.C. 1242/2021, and the decision is dated 2026-01-12. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 20; GST statutory provision - Section 25; GST statutory provision - Section 42; GST statutory provision - Section 53; GST statutory provision - Section 67(2); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 132(1); GST statutory provision - Section 132(5); GST statutory provision - Section 439C; GST statutory provision - Section 482. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 20 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 25 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 42 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 53 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132(5) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 439C — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 482 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE v. GIRISH SACHDEVA — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Technosys Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Power Line Air Express v. Principal Commissioner of CGST and Others — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• STANLEE (INDIA) ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY