Bail Granted to Businessman in GST Fraud Case Involving Rs.7 Crore Revenue Loss Under Section 277 of Income Tax Act

HC granted bail in GST fraud case involving alleged revenue loss of Rs.7 crores. Applicant, sole proprietor accused of creating fictitious firms for fraudulent Input Tax Credit, was released on personal bond of Rs.10,000 with surety. Bail conditions include non-interference with evidence, passport surrender, and travel restrictions. Trial court directed to process bail without being influenced by bail order observations.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for Regular Bail u/s 439 of CrPC for offences u/s 132(1)(b) and (c) read with Section 132(1)(i), 132(5) of CGST Act, Gujarat GST Act, 2017, and other related sections.

Summary:
The applicant filed an Application u/s 439 of CrPC seeking Regular Bail for offences under various sections of the CGST Act, Gujarat GST Act, and IPC. The applicant, through their advocate, contended that they were not involved in the alleged offence and should be granted bail with suitable conditions.

The respondent, represented by learned advocate Ms. Sancheti, opposed the application, stating that the Government was defrauded of revenue worth Rs.7 crores through the creation of fictitious firms to claim Input Tax Credit. The applicant, as the sole proprietor, was accused of benefiting from these forged documents. The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the bail application.

After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the record, the Court noted that the investigation was complete, and a charge-sheet had been filed. Considering the nature of the offence, the prescribed punishment, and the likelihood of a delayed trial, the Court allowed the application. The applicant was granted bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to various conditions including not tampering with evidence, maintaining law and order, providing proof of residence, surrendering passport if applicable, and not leaving India without court permission.

The bail bond was to be executed before the Trial Court, which could grant time for a solvency certificate if requested. Any breach of the bail conditions would empower the Trial Court to take appropriate action. The Court directed that the trial Court should not be influenced by the observations made in the bail order. The rule was made absolute, and direct service was permitted.

---