TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>GST input tax credit fraud using bogus invoices and shell entities, PMLA laundering alleged; bail refusal upheld, probe deadline set.</h1> In proceedings for regular bail under the PMLA arising from alleged laundering of 'proceeds of crime' generated through GST fraud by availing ITC on the ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of regular bail - proceeds of crime - fraud committed of availing ITC on the strength of bogus invoices, by way of creation of multiple companies/firms in the name of innocent persons - reasons to believe - statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible or not - it was held by High Court that 'Since the petitioner has failed to make out a special case to exercise the power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.' HELD THAT:- The respondent is directed to complete further investigation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - it is made claear that breach of the time limit granted by us will not dis-entitle the respondent from filing the supplementary prosecution complaint belatedly, in which case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application. SLP disposed off. Issues: (i) Whether the respondent should be directed to complete further investigation within a specified time; (ii) Whether breach of the time limit will dis-entitle the respondent from filing a supplementary prosecution complaint and whether the petitioner should have liberty to file a fresh bail application; (iii) Whether the Trial Court should decide any future bail application without being influenced by earlier orders.Issue (i): Whether the respondent should be directed to complete further investigation within a specified time.Analysis: The Court considered the need to impose a clear, time-bound direction to ensure progress of the investigative process while preserving prosecutorial powers. The direction specifies a four-month period from receipt of the order for completion of further investigation, imposing a judicially mandated timeline to prevent undue delay.Conclusion: The respondent is directed to complete further investigation within four months from receipt of the order.Issue (ii): Whether breach of the time limit will dis-entitle the respondent from filing a supplementary prosecution complaint and whether the petitioner should have liberty to file a fresh bail application.Analysis: The Court balanced procedural discipline against substantive prosecutorial rights by preserving the respondent's ability to file a supplementary prosecution complaint even if the time limit is missed, while concurrently protecting the petitioner's procedural remedy by granting liberty to seek bail if such belated filing occurs. This approach separates timeline enforcement from the substantive right to prosecute and preserves remedial avenues for the petitioner.Conclusion: Breach of the prescribed time limit will not bar the respondent from filing a supplementary prosecution complaint; liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application in that event.Issue (iii): Whether the Trial Court should decide any future bail application without being influenced by earlier orders.Analysis: The Court required that any future bail application arising from further investigation or supplementary complaint be decided on its own merits by the Trial Court, ensuring independent adjudication unaffected by prior interim directions or orders. This directs the trial forum to undertake a fresh, merits-based assessment.Conclusion: The Trial Court is expected to decide any such fresh bail application on its own merits without being influenced by earlier orders.Final Conclusion: The order imposes a time-bound mandate for completion of further investigation, preserves the prosecutorial right to file supplementary complaints despite delay while protecting the petitioner's remedial options, and requires that any subsequent bail pleas be adjudicated afresh on merits by the Trial Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
