Accused granted bail in GST tax evasion case involving wrongful ITC availment under Section 132 HC granted bail to accused in GST tax evasion case involving wrongful ITC availment under Section 132 of GST Act. Court found investigation complete, no ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Accused granted bail in GST tax evasion case involving wrongful ITC availment under Section 132
HC granted bail to accused in GST tax evasion case involving wrongful ITC availment under Section 132 of GST Act. Court found investigation complete, no custodial interrogation needed, and trial would take considerable time with 64 prosecution witnesses. Considering accused's previous custody from October 2020 to May 2021, clean record, family responsibilities as sole breadwinner, and no flight risk, court allowed bail petition. Accused ordered released on furnishing appropriate bonds to trial court.
Issues involved: The issues involved in this case include bail application in a matter under the Haryana GST Act, 2017 and Central GST Act, 2017, concerning tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crore, issuance of bogus invoices, and illegal transfer of Input Tax Credit.
Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail after being denied bail by the trial court in a case involving tax evasion exceeding Rs. 5 crore under the Haryana GST Act, 2017 and Central GST Act, 2017. The firm, M/s Emm Vee Trading Company, owned by the petitioner, was found to have displayed abnormal fluctuations in turnover, leading to suspicions of tax evasion. The firm was registered at a residential address with no business activities observed at the location. Investigations revealed discrepancies in e-way bills issued by the firm and the actual movement of goods, implicating the petitioner in the alleged tax evasion scheme.
The petitioner argued that he was not the originator or ultimate beneficiary of the invoices in question, and tax evasion occurred at the buyers' end, not his. He claimed to be a scapegoat and not the actual proprietor of the firm, suggesting that others involved were let free while he was wrongly implicated. The petitioner's counsel contended that there was no concrete evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime and that he was merely an intermediary in the transactions. The petitioner had already suffered seven months of incarceration and was not a flight risk.
The State counsel opposed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner was the mastermind behind the issuance of bogus invoices to fraudulently avail and transfer Input Tax Credit, posing a risk to government revenue. However, the court found that the offence was nonviolent, and the petitioner's release on bail would not pose a threat to society. Considering the petitioner's family situation, clean record, and lack of flight risk, the court granted bail, emphasizing that any future offences could lead to bail cancellation.
In conclusion, the court allowed the bail petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing the necessary bonds. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail hearing and should not influence the trial court's proceedings.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
