Accused granted regular bail in Rs. 31 crore fake input tax credit case under GGST Act section 132(1)(c)

The Gujarat HC granted regular bail to an applicant charged under section 132(1)(c) of the GGST Act for allegedly fraudulently claiming input tax credit of Rs. 31.02 crores through fake purchases worth Rs. 172.36 crores from 24 fictitious entities. While acknowledging that economic offences are grave due to their deep-rooted conspiracy nature and impact on state exchequer, the court noted that seriousness of charges alone is not determinative for bail consideration. The court emphasized that veracity of claims regarding fake purchases would be determined at trial, and considering statutory limits under GGST Act and case circumstances, granted conditional regular bail without examining evidence in detail.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims under the GGST Act and CGST Act.
3. Examination of documentary evidence and the legitimacy of transactions.
4. Consideration of the applicant's health condition.
5. Public Prosecutor's opposition based on the gravity of the economic offence.
6. Legal principles regarding bail in economic offences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Regular Bail:
The applicant filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in connection with the Memorandum of Arrest dated 30.11.2021. The alleged offences were under Section 132(1)(c) of the GGST Act and CGST Act, punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of both Acts.

2. Allegations of Fraudulent ITC Claims:
The applicant, a designated Partner of "Utkarsh Ispat LLP," was accused of showing fake purchases from 24 fictitious entities amounting to Rs. 172.36 Crores, thereby availing illegal ITC of Rs. 31.02 Crores. The respondent authority conducted a search and seizure operation, alleging that the applicant's firm had shown voluminous fake purchase transactions from fictitious entities to wrongfully avail ITC.

3. Examination of Documentary Evidence:
The applicant provided documentary evidence, including invoices, bills, vehicle registration numbers, and E-way bills, to substantiate the legitimacy of the transactions. The applicant contended that goods worth Rs. 225 Crores were received with genuine legal documents and that the firm had paid Rs. 40 Crores as GST through banking channels. The applicant argued that the firm had a complete system in place for every consignment of goods arriving at the factory premises.

4. Consideration of the Applicant's Health Condition:
The applicant was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and was hospitalized. This health condition was presented as a factor for consideration in the bail application. The applicant had cooperated with the investigation and had already been in custody since November 2021.

5. Public Prosecutor's Opposition:
The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, highlighting that the applicant's firm had shown fake purchases from fictitious entities and indulged in a larger conspiracy to evade crores of rupees in tax. The prosecutor argued that the applicant was aware of dealing with shell companies and that his release could hamper the ongoing investigation. The prosecutor also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Nimmagadda Prasad v. C.B.I., emphasizing the gravity of economic offences and their detrimental impact on the financial health of the country.

6. Legal Principles Regarding Bail:
The court acknowledged that economic offences are grave and arise from deep-rooted conspiracies, but also noted that seriousness of the charge is not the sole factor in bail considerations. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized that bail is the rule and refusal the exception, even in economic offences. The court considered the statutory limit for filing complaints under the GGST Act and CGST Act, the applicant's health condition, and the fact that the respondent Department had already attached immovable property worth more than the alleged fraudulent claim.

Conclusion:
The court granted regular bail to the applicant, noting that the interest of the respondent Department was already protected by the attachment of the applicant's property. The applicant was ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including not misusing liberty, surrendering the passport, and not leaving India without prior permission. The court emphasized that the veracity of the claims would be a matter of trial and that the applicant's cooperation with the investigation and health condition warranted the grant of bail.

---