Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Bail denied to accused of fake invoices due to ongoing investigations to unearth more fake suppliers

Bimal jain
India's Supreme Court Denies Bail in INR 5 Crore Fake GST Invoice Case, Citing Investigation Risks The Supreme Court of India upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court's decision to deny bail to an accused involved in fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework. The accused, a proprietor of a firm, allegedly availed ITC using fake invoices from suppliers with cancelled GST registrations, amounting to over INR 5 crore. The court emphasized that granting bail could hinder ongoing investigations aimed at uncovering additional fake suppliers. The decision was based on the potential risk of evidence tampering and interference with the investigation process. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Basudev Mittal v. Union of India [2023 (1) TMI 793 - SC ORDER]has refused to interfere with the order passed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein bail was denied to the accused in the alleged matter for availment of wrong Input Tax Credit (“ITC”), on the ground that investigations were still going on for detecting more fake suppliers and investigations might be hampered if bail was granted.

Facts:

Basudev Mittal (“the Petitioner”) is the proprietor of M/s Shree Sainath Enterprises, Raipur. A search was conducted at its residential premises on March 28, 2022 in order to recover documents related to evasion of the Goods and Services Tax (“GST”). During search and scrutiny of documents, it was found that the Petitioner purchased iron scrap from various firms whose GST Registrations had already been cancelled and has fraudulently availed ITC of more than INR 5 Crore thereby committing offenceunder Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). The Petitioner was taken into custody on March 30, 2022.

The Petitioner had applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CrPC”) on the ground that it was arrested in a total false case of GST evasion and further that the alleged offence falls under the category of bailable offences. However, the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court vide order dated July 15, 2022 (“the Impugned Order”) denied the Petitioner’s request of bail, on the ground that further investigation is going on to find out more suspicious and fake suppliers with whom the Petitioner is alleged to have made transactions in order to avail ITC illegally. Further, if the Petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility of it hampering with the evidence and interfering with the investigation.

Being aggrieved this special leave petition is filed.

Issue:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get bail under Section 439 of the CrPC?

Held:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2023 (1) TMI 793 - SC ORDERheld as under:

  • Denied Bail to the Petitioner.
  • Declined to interfere with the Impugned Order at this stage, where further investigation is going on and there is probability of detecting more fake and suspicious firms.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act:

Punishment for certain offences-

(1) Whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the following offences, namely:-

(c) avails input tax credit using the invoice or bill referred to in clause (b) or fraudulently avails input tax credit without any invoice or bill;

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles