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>Bail Denied: Economic Offence Case Involving Fake Invoices and ITC Fraud Under CGST Act Highlights Investigation Integrity.</h1> <h3>Parveen Jain Versus Union of India</h3> Parveen Jain Versus Union of India - TMI Issues:Application for regular bail under CGST Act - Allegations of fake invoices and wrong Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Contention of offence under Section 122 vs. Section 132 of CGST Act - Lack of complaint or FIR against the accused - No notice under Section 74 of CGST Act - Alleged involvement in fake firms - Accused's involvement in availing wrong ITC causing loss to Government Exchequer - Bail application dismissal due to pending investigation.Analysis:The applicant sought bail, claiming false implication in the case involving allegations of issuing invoices without actual goods movement and wrong ITC availing. The defense argued the offence falls under Section 122, not Section 132 of the CGST Act, as no complaint, FIR, or notice under Section 74 was issued against the accused. However, the prosecution contended the accused admitted involvement and caused a loss of Rs. 44.19 Crores to the Government Exchequer, making the offence cognizable and non-bailable.The court noted the allegations against the accused relate to fake invoices and wrongful ITC availing, constituting an offence under Section 132 of the CGST Act. The defense's claim of no document connecting the accused to fake firms was refuted, citing collected evidence supporting the department's contentions. The defense's objection to involving actual offenders as witnesses was deemed irrelevant at the bail stage, emphasizing the need for evidence to establish their role in the offences.Regarding the accused's arrest without an FIR, the court upheld the legality under Section 69 of the CGST Act. Emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences, the court cited precedents highlighting the need for stringent measures in such cases. Referring to recent judgments, the court emphasized the threat economic offences pose to the country's financial health, warranting strict action.Considering the gravity of the case, potential witness tampering, and the substantial taxation amount involved, the court dismissed the bail application due to the ongoing investigation. The decision aimed to prevent any interference with the investigation process and safeguard the integrity of the case without prejudging its merits.
TaxTMI 