2020 (11) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hy, learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the opposite party. 4. As it appears, the petitioner happens to be the Director and Authorized Signatory of M/s. Shri Ganapati Ores & Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kshipra Consumer Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which are trading Companies having G.S.T. registration. The opposite party on receipt of reliable information that the aforesaid companies have issued invoices indicating the sales of goods / raw materials used by different manufacturing units of Steel and Aluminium which are located in different locations of Odisha as well as outside the State of Odisha, but without actual movement of goods. Pursuant to such invoices, which appears to be stage managed invoices, input tax credit, have been claime....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aking note of the nature and gravity of the offence had earlier rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on merit vide order dated 08.02.2019 passed in BLAPL No.7008 of 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner also moved this Court for his release on interim bail in BLAPL No.1917 of 2019 which was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2019. The petitioner is continuing in custody since then. The prosecution report in this case has already been filed. However, the petitioner has again come to this Court seeking his release on bail in this present bail application as his prayer for bail was rejected by the trial Court and also made a prayer for interim release on bail. 5. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s such alleged overt act contributed to frustrate the avowed object of bringing reform tax law brought by the Union of India in the shape of G.S.T. and Rourkela is stated to be an epicentre of such fraudulent activities in India which has spreaded to other parts of the Country, this Court is not inclined to review its earlier order rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner remained in custody for some times more. But, considering the fact that the petitioner is languishing in custody for more than two years and also the fact that due to spread of Pandemic Covid-19 hardly any chance of the trial being concluded in near future, this Court directs the Court in seisin over the matter to release the p....