Chartered Accountant Granted Bail in GST Fraud Case Under Section 132(1)(b)(c) After Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of Direct Benefit

The HC granted bail to a chartered accountant accused under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of CGST Act for allegedly facilitating illegal benefits through fictitious documents for two entities, resulting in illegal availing of Rs. 18.01 crores. While acknowledging the seriousness of accusations, the court found insufficient evidence of direct benefit to the accused and considered his prolonged judicial incarceration unnecessary. Bail was granted with conditions including providing ancestral property as surety, prohibitions against fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses, and mandatory court appearances as required.

---

---

Issues: Alleged offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Bail application; Conditions for granting bail.

In this judgment, the petitioner, a chartered accountant alleged to have committed an offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, was arrested. The prosecution accuses the petitioner of facilitating illegal benefits through fictitious statements of accounts and forged invoices for two entities, resulting in an alleged illegal availing of Rs. 18.01 crores under Section 16 of the Act. The court notes that if the petitioner had not prepared the fictitious documents, the offence would not have occurred. It emphasizes that the prosecution's allegations cannot be conclusively tested at this stage, as evidence collection is ongoing.

The court acknowledges that while the petitioner may have facilitated the entities in committing the offences, there is no tangible evidence yet suggesting his direct benefit from the illegal activities. Despite ongoing investigations and lack of conclusive evidence, the court finds that the incriminatory role attributed to the petitioner may not hold strong against him at this stage. Considering the petitioner's prolonged judicial incarceration since his arrest, the court deems further detention as unnecessary and potentially infringing on his personal liberty.

However, the court also recognizes the gravity of the allegations and the need to prevent the petitioner from fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Therefore, the court imposes conditions for granting bail, including the petitioner providing his ancestral house as personal surety. These conditions are deemed just and reasonable by the court, ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the legal process and preventing any interference with the investigation.

Ultimately, subject to the petitioner complying with the imposed conditions, the court allows the bail application and orders the petitioner's release from judicial custody. The petitioner is directed to not flee from justice, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and to appear before the trial court as required, unless validly exempted.

---