TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lodged on 06.03.2024 by the Additional Assistant Director, office of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, (DGGI), Rourkela Regional Unit, Rourkela inter alia alleging that the accused-petitioner was engaged in sale/purchase of fake GST entities and, in some cases he was also involved in arranging GST invoices for recipient firms for fraudulently availing fake GST Input Tax Credit (ITC). It has also been alleged that the accused-petitioner has provided fake GST entities to some persons, namely, Somnath Sharma and Sunil Kumar and as such had arranged fake GST ITC for some firms like R.K. Mishra and Co., Gangadhar Jena, Parida Enterprises etc. The complaint further reveals that the accused-petitioner had provided the names of a few persons from whom he had purchased fake firms. Primarily, the petitioner had acted as a middle man between the issuer of fake firms and the fraudulent beneficiaries of the fake GST ITC. Further, it has been alleged that in the process the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.40 lakhs till date and has dealt with around 30 entities since his release on bail from the learned Sessions Court, Bhubaneswar. The complaint further reveals that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the present case. IX) All the witnesses are official witnesses and as such there exists no chance of influencing, inducing or gaining over such official witnesses. X) Since the petitioner is a permanent resident of State of Odisha, there is no chance of him absconding or fleeing away from justice. 6. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in course of his argument emphatically argued that the maximum punishment prescribed under the alleged sections is imprisonment extendible up to a maximum period of 5 years and, the same are to be tried summarily by a Magistrate. In such view of the matter, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. reported in (2021) 10 SCC 733 and Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, contended before this Court that the I.O. has committed an illegality by not following the mandatory procedural requirement under Section 41(a) of Cr. P.C. On the contrary, it was argued that the I.O. has taken the petitioner into custody by violating the provisions of the Cr.P.C and by ignoring the guidelines of the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court in the event he is enlarged on bail. It was also contended that the above named Chandraprakash Jaiswal, who is the principal accused in the present case, is the master mind behind the present crime and he operates a racket to commit GST frauds in the country. Despite such serious allegation against the above named principal accused, the CGST authorities have never apprehended the said accused in connection with the present case. On the contrary, on the basis of the confessional statement of the aforesaid principal accused-Chandraprakash Jaiswal, the present petitioner has been taken into custody and he has been suffering incarceration for more than four months as of now. 10. In course of his argument, Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the CBIC Circular dated 17.08.2022. In the said Circular certain guidelines have been framed which are to be followed by the CGST authorities. In the aforesaid guidelines, reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.08.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the petitioner also referred to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-6 of the judgment in Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India bearing SLP (Crl.) No.10319 of 2022 decided on 05.12.2022, the relevant portion is quoted herein below:- "In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the Petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note the alleged evasion of tax by the Petitioner is to the extent as provided under section 132 (1) (I) (i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for more than four months and completion of trial, in any event, would take some time. Needless to mention that the petitioner of released on bail, is required to adhere to the conditions to be imposed and diligently participate in the trial. Further, in a case of present nature, the evidence to be tendered by the respondent would essentially be documentary and electronic. The ocular evidence will be through official witness, due to which there can be no apprehension of tampering, i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Senior counsel for the Opposite Party further reiterated the allegations made in the complaint petition and emphatically argued that the present case being an economic offence and involving huge loss of government revenue, no leniency should be shown to the present petitioner. He further expressed his serious apprehension that in the event the petitioner is released on bail there is every likelihood that the petitioner might indulge in similar criminal offences once again. 16. While opposing the bail application of the present petitioner, Mr. Satapathy, learned Senior counsel for the Opposite Party relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamaliji Porwal & anr. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. C.B.I., Hyderabad reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, Shailesh Rajpal vs. Commissioner reported in 2020 (32) G.S.T.L. 336 (M.P.), P. V. Ramana Reddy vs. UOI W.P. No.4764 of 2019 (Telangana High Court), Bharat Raj Punj vs. Commissioner of Central Goods Service Tax, Sanjay Dhingra vs. Director General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence (Crimin....