TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies bail for tax invoice fraud, citing impact on public funds.</h1> <h3>Sanjay Dhingra Versus Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence</h3> Sanjay Dhingra Versus Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence - TMI Issues: Grant of regular bail under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The judgment pertains to a petition seeking regular bail for the petitioner arrested under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner involve the creation and sale of fake tax invoices without supplying goods, resulting in irregular availment and utilization of input tax credit, causing substantial loss to government revenue. The arrest was made based on the creation of liability amounting to Rs. 127 crores for the government. The petitioner's counsel argued that no notice under Section 74 of the Act has been issued, and the evasion mentioned in the complaint is only Rs. 13 crores. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the petitioner, being the kingpin, is involved in a serious economic offense amounting to Rs. 127 crores, justifying arrest and prosecution without prior notice. The court referenced previous decisions emphasizing the seriousness of economic offenses and the need for a different approach to bail in such cases.The court highlighted that economic offenses involving deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial loss of public funds must be viewed seriously, considering their impact on the country's financial health. Referring to previous judgments, the court emphasized the need to consider various factors while granting bail, such as the nature of accusations, evidence, potential punishment, accused's character, witness tampering risks, public and state interests, and other relevant considerations. In this case, the allegations involve the issuance of fake invoices amounting to approximately Rs. 931 crores, with an input tax credit of around Rs. 127 crores, without any actual movement of goods. After considering the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that no justified ground exists to grant bail to the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
TaxTMI 