2019 (12) TMI 274 - HC - GST

Petitioner Granted Anticipatory Bail in Tax Fraud Case Under GST Act

The court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged tax fraud and forgery under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. ... Grant of Anticipatory Bail - illegal and fraudulent Input Tax Credit - Section 72 of 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This is a fit case where the above named petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of ₹ 1,00,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 2,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur, with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case and other conditions laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. Application disposed off. Issues:Grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations and Defense:The petitioner, a proprietor of a business, is accused of fraudulent activities related to tax evasion under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner engaged in circular trading, forged documents to avail tax credits, and transacted without actual business operations. The defense argues that the allegations are false, citing the petitioner's relocation to another state, closure of the business, and intent to cancel the registration certificate. It is contended that penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code are not applicable due to the special nature of the tax act.2. Legal Precedents:The petitioner's counsel relies on judgments from the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court to support the argument that prosecution under the Goods and Services Tax Act should follow the completion of adjudication procedures under the Act. The judgments emphasize the necessity of determining the demand due from the assessee before initiating punitive actions under the Act. These precedents are cited to challenge the validity of the prosecution against the petitioner.3. Anticipatory Bail Decision:After considering the arguments from both sides, the court grants the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail. The court orders the petitioner to deposit cash security and furnish a bail bond with sureties. Conditions include cooperating with the investigation, appearing before the Investigating Officer when required, and providing personal identification details. The decision is based on the circumstances presented and the court's assessment of the case.In conclusion, the judgment addresses the complex legal issues surrounding the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged tax fraud and forgery. The detailed analysis covers the allegations, defense arguments, reliance on legal precedents, and the final decision to grant anticipatory bail with specific conditions.