The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
