Chartered Accountant granted bail in GST fraud case after Court considers custody, family, legal arguments

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, who was accused of offences under the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. Despite opposition from the Union of India citing substantial input tax credit fraud, the Court considered the petitioner's prolonged custody, parental responsibilities, and legal arguments in favor of bail. Bail was allowed upon the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, with the condition to appear before the trial court as required.

---

---

Issues involved:
Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 132(1)(i)(iv) read with Sub-Section (5) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The complaint against the petitioner alleged offences under Section 132(1)(i)(iv) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was accused of creating firms based on documents provided by co-accused, charging higher fees for GST returns, and facilitating the registration of fake firms. The petitioner's statement, initially recorded by authorities but retracted later, claimed he was coerced into making false statements after being subjected to physical abuse. The complaint did not allege that the petitioner received any amount related to wrong input tax credit. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, with the maximum sentence for the offence being six months, triable by a First Class Magistrate.

The Union of India opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner was instrumental in registering fake firms that availed input tax credit worth Rs. 146 crores. It was claimed that the petitioner knowingly filed GST returns for non-existent firms. The prosecution argued that the offence the petitioner was charged with carried a maximum sentence of five years, and cited a previous case where bail for a Chartered Accountant in a similar situation was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Court.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's prolonged custody, the fact that he had a child, and the contentions made by his counsel. The Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. The bail application was allowed, with the condition that the petitioner furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner was directed to appear before the court and any subsequent hearings as required.

---