Bail Denied to Business Proprietor in Fake Input Tax Credit Scheme Under CGST Act Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c)

The HC denied bail to the applicant under Section 439 of CrPC for violations of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) r/w 132(5) of CGST Act, 2017. The proprietor of a business allegedly participated in a network availing fake Input Tax Credit without actual goods supply, causing revenue loss of Rs. 11,80,56,620. Despite the applicant's young age and willingness to freeze outstanding amounts, the court determined this was a well-planned economic crime involving fake invoices and non-existent suppliers, with substantial documentary evidence of involvement and ongoing investigations.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for violation of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) r/w. 132(5) of CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The applicant, a proprietor of M/s. Shah Enterprises, is accused of engaging in a network of entities to avail and pass fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supplies of goods, causing a loss of revenue to the government. The prosecution alleges that the applicant violated the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by availing inadmissible ITC through fictitious/non-existent suppliers. Out of 27 suppliers disclosed by the applicant, 14 had canceled/suspended GSTIN numbers. The total amount of fraudulently availed ITC is Rs. 5,90,28,310, with a total amount involved in the offense being Rs. 11,80,56,620.

The applicant, aged 24 and recently married, argued for bail, stating he is a scrap trader who maintained records and provided details of transactions to the respondent. He offered to freeze the outstanding amount to the suppliers and requested bail on any terms. However, the prosecution opposed the bail application, highlighting ongoing investigations into fake/non-existent suppliers and the potential for the applicant to tamper with evidence or alert others if released on bail.

The judge, after considering both sides, concluded that the offense committed by the applicant was well-planned economic crime involving fake invoices and non-existent suppliers. With documentary evidence of the applicant's involvement in the offense and ongoing investigations, the judge deemed it not a fit case for granting bail, leading to the rejection and disposal of Bail Application No. 229 of 2022.

---