TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Credit Fraud Suspect Denied Bail Due to Ongoing Investigations and Potential Witness Tampering Risks</h1> <h3>Ravinder Baweja Versus Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence</h3> HC denied regular bail in tax credit fraud case. Court found no change in circumstances from previous bail rejection, citing potential witness tampering ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail (second bail application) - availment of inadmissible input tax credit - Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132 of Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 132 of State(s) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner earlier also filed bail petition before this Court vide CRM-M-1315-2022 which was dismissed by way of passing a detailed order vide Annexure P-4 on the ground that material witnesses are yet to be examined and also considering the apprehension expressed by the the learned counsel for the respondent that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he may influence witnesses or may tamper with evidence or may flee from justice. There is no change of circumstance during the interregnum period after the dismissal of the earlier bail petition till the filing of the present petition. As per the learned counsel for the respondent, the material witnesses are yet to be examined. Petition dismissed. Issues:Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case involving Sections 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, State(s) Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Analysis:The petitioner filed a second petition seeking regular bail, citing the slow pace of trial and previous dismissal of a bail petition. The petitioner's counsel argued for bail, mentioning that some witnesses have been examined. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner was actively involved in managing entities with inadmissible tax credits, causing a significant loss to the state exchequer. The respondent argued that the petitioner, along with co-accused, may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released on bail, given the amount involved and the gravity of the offense.The court noted that a previous bail petition was dismissed due to pending examination of material witnesses and concerns about witness influence and evidence tampering if the petitioner is released. The court highlighted that no change in circumstances warranted a different decision, especially with material witnesses still to be examined. Considering the substantial amount involved and the seriousness of the offense, the court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to regular bail.The court dismissed the present petition for regular bail, emphasizing that the observations made were specific to this petition and did not affect the case's merits. The decision was based on the unchanged circumstances, pending witness examinations, and the gravity of the offense involving a substantial amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
