Denial of Anticipatory Bail for Rs. 13.12 Crores Tax Fraud: Seriousness of Offense & Lack of Cooperation Stressed

The court denied the applicant's request for anticipatory bail in a case involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 13.12 crores. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense, the accused's lack of cooperation with authorities, and the need for transparent engagement in the investigation process. Citing the gravity of the offense and the conduct of the accused, anticipatory bail was deemed unwarranted, leading to the dismissal of the application.

---

---

Issues:
Bail application based on apprehension of arrest in a false case involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 13.12 crores.

Analysis:
The matter was brought before the court as per the directions of the High Court and the Principal District & Sessions Judge. The applicant sought bail, claiming no liability in the case and citing participation in proceedings before the GST Department. The applicant's senior counsel referenced specific judgments to support the bail application. However, the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the application lacked merit as there was no reasonable belief of arrest in a non-bailable offense. The SPP highlighted the gravity of the offense, alleging fraudulent ITC availment amounting to Rs. 13.12 crores by the accused's firms. The accused was accused of evading investigation and not cooperating despite multiple notices. The SPP supported their arguments with legal precedents, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds for anticipatory bail.

The allegations against the accused included fraudulent ITC availment through non-existent suppliers and forged invoices, totaling Rs. 13.12 crores. The accused, associated with multiple firms, was accused of tax evasion and non-cooperation with authorities. Despite being summoned several times, the accused allegedly avoided investigation, causing delays. The court noted the lack of deposits from the accused's side and the need for the accused to cooperate transparently. The court also considered the bail granted to a co-accused in a similar case, emphasizing the need for the accused to engage with the investigation process. The court concluded that, given the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the lack of cooperation, anticipatory bail was not warranted, leading to the dismissal of the application. The judgment was delivered, denying the protection of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

---