TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the court of learned S.D.J.M., Panposh corresponding to GST and CT Enforcement Unit, Rourkela Case No. 1/2020- 2021 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act,2017(hereinafter referred to as OGST Act). 3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner claims to be the Director of a company named M/s. Madhusmita Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Rourkela, which is a fictitious entity. It is alleged that the petitioner effected purchase of goods worth Rs. 100.44 crores and availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 18.08 crores and passed on ITC worth Rs. 19.78 crores against sale of Rs. 109.88 crores. Thus, the total ITC availed and passed on by the accused in his individual capaci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment for the alleged offence is only five years and the accused has in the meantime stayed more than one year in custody. Since the prosecution report has already been submitted, there should be no impediment in directing release of the petitioner. Mr. Kar further contends that the master mind of the entire transaction as per the prosecution report was one Atul Bansal, who, being similarly prosecuted for the same offence and facing trial in 2(c)CC No. 6/2019 pending in the court of learned JMFC, Chandikhol corresponding to GST and CT Enforcement Wing, Jajpur, Jajpur Road Case No. 1/2019-20, has since been granted bail by this court vide order dated 06.03.2020 passed in BLAPL No. 9529 of 2019. It is also contended that there is no scope of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the trial court has issued NBW against him, against which he has approached this court in CRLMC No.1702 of 2022, which is presently pending. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that it would be evident from the prosecution report that the present petitioner had not cooperated with the investigation and therefore, such conduct disentitles him from bail as he may not cooperate with the investigating agency even now when further investigation is in progress. Citing the above grounds, Mr. Mishra has forcefully argued that the accused petitioner should not be granted bail. 6. Before delving into the merits of rival contentions it would be apt to mention that both parties have referred to several decisions to buttress their respective p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainly postulates that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail and that the entire community is aggrieved, if the economic offenders, who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. In the case of Leena Mahesh Motewar (supra), this court held that there is no absolute hidebound rule that bail must necessarily be granted to the co- accused when another co-accused has been granted bail. 9. This Court is fully conscious of the ratio laid down in the cases referred above but then, it is also the settled position of law that bail is basically a matter of judicial discretion, for which the facts and circumstances of each case would have to be considered whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the accused on grounds of parity in the case at hand. 10. The facts of the case may now be considered in the backdrop of the aforementioned legal propositions. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2020. P.R. was submitted on 09.10.2020 keeping the investigation open. From the report filed by the prosecution on 02.07.2021, it is seen that further investigation is still in progress. The question is, can this be a ground to deny bail to the accused indefinitely. It should be kept in mind that the offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c)&(i) of the OGST Act are punishable with a maximum punishment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment. Therefore, investigation ought to be completed within 60 days as per Section 167 Cr.P.C. Of course, Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving the present petitioner and the co-accused Atul Bansal, there is hardly any justification to treat the petitioner differently than him. 11. Coming to the apprehension of the prosecution that the present petitioner may tamper with the evidence, this Court is unable to accept the same for the reason that a bare perusal of the prosecution report would suggest that the same was submitted after thorough investigation during which several documents and records were verified and statements collected from different persons. The report of further investigation also suggests that the same has been/is being conducted in different States whereby, several incriminating materials have supposedly been discovered. It is not specifically put forth by....