2022 (2) TMI 655 - HC - GST

Accused granted bail in GST fraud case involving fake firms and input tax credit under Section 132(1)(B)(H)(I)

Rajasthan HC granted bail to accused charged under Sections 132(1)(B)(H)(I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for allegedly supplying packaging ... Seeking grant of Bail - Supply of packaging material to the seven firms which are fake - input tax credit availed or not - offence(s) under Sections 132 (1) (B) (H) (I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dananjay Singh S/o Shri Hari Sharan Singh shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties of ₹ 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. Issues:Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 132(1)(B)(H)(I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. challenging his implication in a case related to offences under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that he had been wrongly accused and had been in custody since October 2021. It was contended that the complaint against him did not disclose complete investigation details, and as per the GST Act, incomplete charge-sheets cannot be filed. The petitioner also claimed that no show cause notice was issued, and the complainant had not provided valid sanctions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the firms accused of being fake were registered under the GST Act, and the petitioner had not claimed any input tax credit, emphasizing that the trial process might be lengthy, warranting bail.2. The petitioner's counsel relied on various judgments to support their arguments, emphasizing the need for bail in economic offense cases. On the other hand, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioner had created fake firms to claim input tax credit fraudulently. The respondent's counsel highlighted the gravity of economic offenses and the non-cooperation of the petitioner in the investigation. It was contended that the investigation against the petitioner had been completed, and the complaint had been filed, making the petitioner ineligible for default bail.3. After considering the arguments from both sides and the circumstances of the case, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The court ordered the petitioner to furnish a personal bond along with sureties for his release, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court as required.