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>Petitioner Denied Bail in Rs. 47 Crore Tax Credit Fraud Case Under CGST Act</h1> <h3>Sumit Dutta S/o Shri Vinod Dutta Patner Msr Veto Merchandise Jaipur Versus Union Of India, Through Superintendent Anti-Evasion Central Goods And Service Tax Department</h3> The Court denied bail to the petitioner in a case involving alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit claim under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The ... Seeking grant of Bail - irregular input tax credit claimed without any transportation of goods - fake bills and invoices input tax credit was passed on to firms which were existing in papers - HELD THAT:- The bail cannot be granted to petitioner - bail application rejected. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017 involving alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit claim.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in response to a complaint registered at the Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise Commissionrate, Jaipur, for offences under Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017.2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a former employee of M/s Veto Merchandise, resigned in Feb. 2020 and provided details to establish the actual movement of goods. Reference was made to a co-accused who had been granted bail by the Court. It was emphasized that the offence carries a punishment of up to five years of imprisonment and is triable by a Magistrate.3. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was a partner in M/s Veto Merchandise and fraudulently claimed Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 47 crore without any actual transportation of goods. It was further contended that fake bills and invoices were used to pass on input tax credit to non-existent firms, resulting in a total amount of Rs. 47 crore being involved in the fraudulent activity.4. After considering the contentions from both sides, the Court, based on the arguments presented by the Public Prosecutor, decided not to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application under Criminal Misc. Bail Application was consequently rejected by the Court.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the nature of the alleged offence, and the Court's decision regarding the bail application in the context of the CGST Act, 2017 provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
