Today, On 15th July, The Supreme Court cancelled Ritu Minocha’s interim bail in a Rs.665 crore GST fraud case, criticizing the Karnataka High Court for granting relief out of turn. It remarked, “The manner and timeframe needs interference” in the case proceedings.
The Supreme Court cancelled the interim bail previously granted by the Karnataka High Court to Ritu Minocha, who is implicated in an alleged 665 crore GST input tax credit (ITC) fraud.
A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti noted that the manner and timing of the Karnataka High Court’s decision raised significant concerns regarding propriety, emphasizing that material facts had been concealed during the bail petition hearing.
The Court stated,
“The manner and timeframe in which things have moved in the High Court needs interference,”
Officials from the DGGI’s Bangalore region conducted a search at Ritu Nitin Minocha’s residence in Mumbai on January 6 and 7.
Also Read: Centre Announces Establishment of GST Appellate Tribunal Nationwide
She was arrested on January 20 for tax evasion under sections 132 (b)(c), 132 (l)(i), and 132 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Following her arrest, she was presented before Special Court Judge Vishwanath C Gowder on January 24, who remanded her to judicial custody.
On January 25, Justice SR Krishna Kumar of the Karnataka High Court granted Minocha interim bail, allowing her to remain out of custody.
Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman, representing 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 filed a writ petition seeking interim bail, which was prioritized on the High Court’s agenda for January 25.
Also Read: Donuts & Cakes Should Be Taxed At 5% Or 18% GST?: Bombay High Court To Decide
Venkataraman argued that the High Court was not informed that the Special Court was already handling the matter. Although this was later mentioned, the Supreme Court criticized the lack of transparency and the undue hurry with which the case was addressed.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing Minocha, argued that she has caregiving responsibilities for her daughter and claimed that the total tax evasion linked to her roles as director in various companies was limited to Rs.5 crore.
He contended that the alleged offence was non-cognisable under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act and did not warrant custodial detention. However, the Court declined to consider these points.
While refraining from commenting on the merits of the case, the Court stated that the High Court’s interim order was unsustainable.
The Bench ruled,
“Without commenting too much on this, we set aside the order,”
Minocha was ordered to surrender to the trial court within one week. Meanwhile, the High Court has been prohibited from adjudicating the writ petition she filed to quash the case against her.
The matter will be reviewed by the appropriate High Court bench, which will hear it afresh, with the Supreme Court clarifying that the High Court should assess the case solely on its own merits, free from influence from this order.