The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside the interim bail granted by the Karnataka High Court to Ritu Minocha, an accused in an alleged ₹665 crore GST input tax credit (ITC) fraud.
A Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah b SVN Bhatti observed that the manner and timeframe in which the Karnataka High Court granted relief raised serious questions of propriety and material facts had been suppressed during the hearing of the bail petition before the High Court.
“The manner and timeframe in which things have moved in the High Court needs interference,” the Court said.
DGGI officials from Bangalore region went to Ritu Nitin Minocha's Mumbai residence on January 6 and 7 and conducted a search operation.
She was brought to the city by the authorities who arrested her on January 20 on charges of tax evasion under sections 132 (b)(c), 132 (l)(i) and 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. She was produced before Judge Vishwanath C Gowder of the Special Court for the Trial of Economic Offences on January 24. The judge remanded Ritu to judicial custody.
Justice SR Krishna Kumar of Karnataka High Court granted her an interim bail on January 25 and she has since then not been in the custody of the authorities.
Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, who appeared for the GST department, pointed out that Minocha had appeared before the Special Economic Offences Court on January 21 and 23.
However, on January 24, she moved a writ petition before the High Court seeking interim bail, which was listed the very next day—January 25—at the top of the board. Venkataraman submitted that the fact that the Special Court was already seized of the matter was not disclosed to the High Court. Though it was later mentioned in the afternoon that the trial court had rejected her bail plea, the Supreme Court criticised the lack of candour and the undue urgency with which the matter was taken up.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for Minocha, submitted that she is a woman with caregiving responsibilities for her daughter. He further argued that the total tax evasion attributable to the companies in which she served as director was limited to ₹5 crore. Invoking Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, Ahmadi contended that the alleged offence was non-cognisable and did not justify custodial detention.
The Court, however, refused to consider these arguments.
In its order, the Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but held that the High Court’s interim order could not be sustained.
“Without commenting too much on this, we set aside the order,” the Bench ruled.
Minocha was directed to surrender before the trial court within one week.
In the interim, the High Court has been restrained from deciding the writ petition she filed for quashing the case against her.
The matter will be placed before the appropriate bench of the High Court and heard afresh. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court shall decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by the present order.