2024 (1) TMI 1097 - HC - GST

Bail denied for accused charged with fraudulent Input Tax Credit without receiving goods under Section 439 CrPC

The HC rejected the bail application of an accused charged with fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit without actual receipt of goods. The court relied ... Grant of regular bail - availing fraudulent Input Tax Credit without actual receipts of goods - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANDEEP GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (5) TMI 240 - SC ORDER] considering the submission of learned counsel for applicant in that case that the applicant therein has already been undergone one year and eight months imprisonment, the maximum sentence to be awarded is of five years, has refused to allow the application/appeal filed by applicant therein and disposed of the SLP observing that the State shall make endeavour to complete the investigation within three months. In the case at hand, the applicant was arrested only on 30.09.2023, the matter is still under investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, allegations made against the applicant, evidence collected by the prosecution, seriousness of the offence and further considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Goel, present case is not found to be a fit case to enlarge applicant on bail. This application filed under Section 439 of CrPC is rejected. Issues involved: Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for offence under Section 69(1) CGST & 132(1)(1)(i) CGST.Summary:1. Allegations and Investigation: The applicant was arrested in connection with a GST fraud involving managing and operating multiple fake firms to pass on fraudulent Input Tax Credit. The investigation revealed the applicant's involvement in issuing bogus invoices causing a loss of over Rs. 5.5 crores to the Government exchequer. 2. Applicant's Submission: Applicant sought regular bail as the complaint had been filed after obtaining sanction, and further interrogation was unnecessary. Cited a Supreme Court decision in support of the bail application. 3. Opposition by Respondent: The respondent opposed bail, stating that the investigation was ongoing at a pan India level. Concerns were raised about the applicant tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Various legal precedents were cited to support the opposition to bail. 4. Court's Decision: After hearing both parties and examining the documents, the court found the allegations serious, with potential for tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court concluded that the case did not merit bail at the present stage. The application for bail under Section 439 of CrPC was rejected, with an expectation for the respondent to complete the investigation promptly.