Grant of Bail in Jurisdictional Conflict Case: Petitioners accused of tax credit fraud released.

The Court granted bail to the petitioners in a case involving jurisdictional conflict between DGGI and CGST in investigating alleged wrongful availing of Input Tax Credit under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Despite serious allegations of involvement in a larger racket issuing fake invoices, the Court considered the petitioners' custody period, lack of necessity for further investigation, and the compoundable nature of the offence with a maximum punishment of five years. Bail was granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with specified conditions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional conflict between DGGI and CGST in the investigation leading to the arrest of the petitioners.
2. Allegations of wrongful availing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners.
4. Gravity of the offence and the need for further investigation.

Jurisdictional Conflict:
The bail applications were filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners who were arrested for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that the investigation by CGST, leading to their arrest, was unwarranted as DGGI was already investigating the matter. They argued that the investigation was bifurcated to involve them in two cases instead of one, with inflated ITC claims to make the offence nonbailable.

Allegations of Wrongful ITC Availment:
The respondents alleged that the petitioners wrongfully availed ITC amounting to significant sums through firms existing on paper. The investigation revealed inflated ITC claims not only concerning M/s. SKE but also other firms. The gravity of the offence was emphasized, indicating ongoing investigations and the involvement of the petitioners in a larger racket issuing fake invoices.

Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners, through their counsel, sought bail stating that they were not required for further investigation, had no criminal antecedents apart from the present complaints, and had been in custody since the respective arrest dates. They argued for bail due to the complaints already being filed against them and the non-bailable nature of the offence being a result of mischievously inflated ITC claims.

Gravity of Offence and Need for Further Investigation:
The respondents opposed the bail applications, highlighting the grave allegations against the petitioners for wrongfully availing ITC, involvement in a large racket issuing fake invoices, and destroying evidence. They argued against bail, citing the ongoing investigation and the seriousness of the offences committed.

In the judgment, the Court noted the previous order granting bail to other accused related to the case and the finality of that order. Considering the petitioners' custody period, the filing of complaints against them, and the lack of necessity for further investigation, the Court granted bail to the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the offence was compoundable, with a maximum punishment of five years, and directed the petitioners to furnish a personal bond and sureties for their release on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with specified conditions.

---