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>Anticipatory bail denied in GST input tax credit fraud involving forged documents and bogus bills</h1> <h3>Hitendra Chandrakant Shah Versus State Of Gujarat</h3> Hitendra Chandrakant Shah Versus State Of Gujarat - 2024 (81) G. S. T. L. 338 (Guj.) Issues:The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 11191011220168 of 2022 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Details of Judgment:Issue 1: Allegations in the FIRThe FIR alleges that the applicant, along with other accused, illegally opened a GST Account using false documents to obtain financial benefits through input tax credit. The applicant is accused of creating a dummy firm, using forged documents to open a bank account and register for GST, and generating bogus bills to obtain input tax credit, causing a financial loss to the government exchequer.Issue 2: Bail ApplicationThe applicant filed for anticipatory bail after his initial application was rejected. The applicant's counsel argued that he was not involved in the scam, citing his incarceration during the alleged period and lack of direct allegations against him in the FIR. The defense claimed the prosecution exaggerated the charges to harass the applicant and that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation.Issue 3: Prosecution's OppositionThe Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant colluded with other accused to siphon off Rs. 1500 Crore through fraudulent GST registrations and bogus bills. The prosecution highlighted the seriousness of economic offences and the applicant's involvement in similar previous offenses, indicating a habitual pattern of cheating the government.Issue 4: Court's DecisionAfter reviewing the FIR and arguments from both sides, the Court found prima facie evidence of a scam involving bogus input tax credit and financial loss to the government. The Court deemed the offense serious, affecting the public exchequer and society at large. Citing precedents on economic offenses, the Court denied pre-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations and the need to view economic crimes with a different approach.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that the applicant cannot be released on pre-arrest bail due to the nature and severity of the economic offense alleged against him. The judgment underscores the importance of addressing economic crimes seriously to safeguard the financial health of the country.
TaxTMI 