Anticipatory bail and dual prosecution principles applied in GST fake ITC allegations with overlapping IPC offences.

Allegations of fictitious firms, fabricated bills and wrongful Input Tax Credit were treated as capable of attracting offences under both the GST law and the IPC on the same factual matrix. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act was applied to state that, where one act constitutes offences under two enactments, prosecution under either is permissible and the bar operates only against double punishment for the same offence. On the facts, the overlapping complaint and FIR, the petitioners' prior GST proceedings, their substantial custody, and the absence of any material showing absconding justified protection from arrest. Anticipatory bail was granted, subject to joining investigation and compliance with Section 438(2) CrPC conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in an FIR alleging fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit through fake bills and dummy firms, notwithstanding pendency of proceedings under the GST enactment and the addition of IPC offences; and whether prosecution under the GST law and the IPC could proceed on the same factual matrix.

Analysis: The allegations related to creation of fictitious firms, fabrication of bills and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. Such conduct was treated as attracting both GST offences and IPC offences on the same facts. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was applied to hold that where one act constitutes offences under two enactments, prosecution under either enactment is permissible and the bar is only against double punishment for the same offence. The Court noted that the petitioners had already faced proceedings under the GST complaint, had remained in custody for a substantial period, were not shown to be absconding, and had not been arrested during the long pendency of the FIR. The allegations in the complaint and the FIR were found to be substantially overlapping.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners. The Court held that the circumstances justified protection from arrest, subject to joining investigation and compliance with the conditions of Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---