TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 2.48 crores on the strength of fake purchase invoices issued in the name of 21 fictitious entities. It has also allegedly been found to have passed on bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) of 2.48 crores to the tax payers within and outside the state of Odisha in the name of the firm of the Petitioner. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner in collusion with others has been found to have created and operated 6 fictitious firms to avail/utilize bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 34.23 crores in their names on the strength of fake purchase invoices without physical receipt of goods and has passed on the same to recipients both within and outside the state. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the petitioner has always made genuine sale and purchase of goods using genuine GSTN and has paid Tax (GST) accordingly. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since the month of 12.3.2020 and in the meantime charge sheet has been filed on 07.05.2020 U/s.132(1)(b)(c)(i) of OGST Act 2017. The fact that an earlier bail application has been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge CBI, Court No.1, BBSR vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been awarded by the concerned Department in the past. The records of GST paid have been produced for the financial years from 2017 to 2018, 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been maintaining the records as required in law. It was further stated that the petitioner is a genuine businessman who prior to start the above iron and steel material products had availed a cash credit loan by mortgaging all his personal/parental property with the City Union Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,22,26,269/-. 7. This Court while dealing with the contention of the counsels for the parties has taken note of the fact that in such matters the evidence is largely based on documentary evidence. Once the charge-sheet has been filed unless antecedents to the contrary can be demonstrated, the presence of the accused may not be required to take the prosecution to its logical conclusion. 8. The object of the law in question is to act as a deterrent in blocking loopholes in an otherwise nascent law which concerns itself with the collection of revenue for the State. Section 132(1) (i)of the Act provides that in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bhuwalka v.Union of India 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 9774. 10. However, the most cogent reasoning has been adduced by the Madras High Court in the case of Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of GST & C. Ex., Salem 2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 321 (Mad.) it has been aptly held that; "38. Though the discussions and conclusions therein have been rendered in the context of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, levying service tax, I am of the view that they are equally applicable to the provisions of the CGST Act as well. Section 132 of the Act as extracted earlier, imposes a punishment upon the Assessee that 'commits' an offence. There is no dispute whatsoever that the offences set out under (a) to (l) of the provision refer to those items, that constitute matters of assessment and would form part of an order of assessment, to be passed after the process of adjudication is complete and taking into account the submissions of the Assessee and careful weighing of evidence found and explanations offered by the Assessee in regard to the same. 39. The use of words 'commits' make it more than amply clear that the act of committal of the offence is to be fixed first be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail. The answer to the question whether to grant bail or not depends upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. For the purpose of granting or refusing bail there is no classification of the offences except the ban under Section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code against grant of bail in the case of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence there is no statutory support or justification for classifying offences into different categories such as economic offences and for refusing bail on the ground that the offence involved belongs to a particular category. When the Court has been granted discretion in the matter of granting bail and when there is no statute prescribing a special treatment in the case of a particular offence the Court cannot classify the cases and say that in particular classes b....