Accused granted bail in tax evasion case involving fake invoice ITC claims under Section 6(2)(b) CGST Act

The Patiala House Courts granted bail to an accused charged with tax evasion through fake invoice ITC claims. The court applied the doctrine of law of the case, noting that co-accused Rajiv Chawla and Shipra Chawla had already been granted bail on identical facts under Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act. The Department's own submission that the applicant was merely an employee of the main conspirators further supported the bail application. The court held it could not take a different view from the coordinate jurisdiction's earlier decision and granted bail on furnishing bonds of Rs.10,000 with surety.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and the grant of bail to the accused based on multiple actions initiated by different agencies under the CGST.

Interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act:
The court considered the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act in the context of multiple actions initiated by different agencies under the CGST. It was observed that no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under the Act on the same subject matter if proceedings have already been initiated by another officer. The court emphasized that the intention of the law is to ensure assessment and levying of GST in accordance with the Act to prevent tax evasion. The court found that the actions initiated by different units against the accused were against the spirit of the CGST Act.

Dismissal of First Bail Application:
The first bail application of the accused was dismissed by the court as it was distinguished from the cases of other co-accused persons who were granted bail based on similar grounds. The court noted that the Department had not informed the court about the actions already taken against the accused by different units.

Grant of Bail to the Accused:
The court granted bail to the accused based on the fact that the actions initiated against him were similar to those against the co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Department's stand that the main accused were Rajiv Chawla and Shipra Chawla, and the present applicant was only an employee, further supported the grant of bail to the accused.

Doctrine of Law of the Case:
The court invoked the doctrine of the law of the case, stating that a finding on a question of law given in a case continues to bind all subsequent judges unless disturbed by a higher court. Therefore, the court upheld the interpretation of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act by the Roster Judge and granted bail to the accused.

Conclusion:
The accused, Kamal Kumar, was admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Ld. MM/Duty MM. The application was disposed of, and the order was directed to be issued dasti.

---