Bail Granted in Rs. 72 Crore GST Fraud Case After Court Finds Continued Custody Unnecessary Under Tax Credit Scheme Investigation

The court granted bail to the accused who faced allegations of involvement in fraudulent Input Tax Credit schemes worth Rs. 72 crores through multiple shell companies. Despite prosecution evidence from WhatsApp chats and statements under the GST Act, the court determined that continued custody served no purpose, especially as co-accused with direct involvement had already received bail. The DC imposed conditions including a Rs. 5,00,000 personal bond, requirements to cooperate with investigation, not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and restrictions on leaving the country. The decision applied established bail principles from precedents like Anil Mahajan and Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta cases.

---

---

Issues: Allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availing and passing, conspiracy with firms, involvement in fake billing, failure to join investigation, bail plea based on false implication, parity with other accused, evidence based on whats app chats and statements, grant of bail to co-accused, principles of bail grant.

The judgment delivered by the District/Sessions Court at Patiala House Court involved allegations against the accused regarding the involvement of multiple firms in fraudulently availing and passing on ineligible/fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 72 crores. It was alleged that the accused conspired with these firms to create transactions without actual supply of goods/services to avail ITC. The investigation revealed fund transfers to shell companies and individuals related to the accused, indicating his role in managing the affairs and facilitating the commission of the offence.

The defense counsel argued for bail, claiming the accused's false implication, lack of evidence of direct involvement in the alleged offence, and seeking parity with other accused granted bail. The prosecution highlighted evidence from whats app chats and statements under the GST Act, along with co-accused statements, to establish the accused's involvement. The court noted that the accused had been in custody, his statement recorded, and investigation no longer pending. Considering bail principles from precedents like Anil Mahajan v. Commissioner of Customs and Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta v. CBI, the court granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with conditions to cooperate in the investigation, not influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, leave the country without court permission, or engage in similar offences.

The judgment emphasized that the accused's release on bail was warranted, as no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody, especially when co-accused with direct involvement had been granted bail. The court's decision was based on the principles of bail grant established by higher courts, ensuring the accused's compliance with investigation requirements and preventing any interference with the legal process.

---