TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Complaint filed against him for offences punishable under Section 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act, 2017), on account of evasion of CGST running into crores of rupees. 2. Briefly stated, the officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) developed an intelligence that (i) M/s Aastha Apparels Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s JBB Apparels Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s JBN Apparels Pvt. Ltd., and (iv) M/s Nautilus Metal Craft Pvt. Ltd., were engaged in fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the Invoices of non-existing and fictitious Firms or such Firms which apparently did not make any purchases themselves. 3. It was also gathered that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain Buddhikota Subha Rao, 1989 AIR (SC) 2292, it was held that once the Application is rejected, there is no question of granting a similar prayer as it amounts to virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact-situation. 9. The second ground is that the Respondent's Companies and his accomplices had remained non-cooperative. Summons were issued to the sons of the Respondent for their appearance on 05.11.2020, but they remained unanswered. Likewise, summons had been issued to his sons namely, Kanav Goyal and Rajat Goyal for their appearance on various dates, but again they failed to appear. 10. The Respondent not only consistently disobeyed the summons issued to him, but he also failed to join the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ground of parity was not available to the Respondent for the reason that Vikas Chowdhary had appeared before the IO for tendering his statement in response to the summons while the Respondent had failed to do so. Vikas Chowdhary had offered to reverse ITC in his application for Bail which was recorded by the learned CMM, New Delhi. The antecedents of Vikas Chowdhary are not as poor as that of the Respondent, who is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of cases. In addition, various other cases against the Respondent and his Companies have been booked by other agencies. 15. He was summoned as an accused in a case under Customs Act, 1962 and the prosecution is pending before the learned CMM, New Delhi. He has been involved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave purchased goods, were found to be non-existing. These Companies further issued Invoices to Companies of Vikas Chowdhary, in which GST is mentioned which was taken by his Companies and ultimately he got refund from the Government by showing Exports. However, no actual cash payment of GST at any stage was made by the Companies of Vikas Chowdhary who also took refund in cash from Government. Few of the Companies of the Respondent have already received such refund which was till date computed to the tune of Rs.9.35 crore. It is claimed that there is a circular trading amongst these Companies which was used to pass on ITC, without actual payment of GST at any stage. Thus, Respondent was the direct beneficiary. 21. It is therefore, submitt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which are sufficient to convince the Court that there exists reasonable grounds for prima facie believing that the Applicant is not guilty of an offence. 25. Until filing of the Chargesheet, one of the important factor that weigh on the mind of a Judge, is the continuity of investigation and whether it would be hampered by the accused if released on Bail. However, once a Chargesheet is filed, this approach changes and apart from merits of the case, the Court is required to consider whether there is need to keep the accused in custody even after the investigations. This filing of Chargesheet is, therefore, a substantial change in circumstances. 26. In the present case, a case Complaint has already been filed against the Complainant on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k recall of the Bail Order was that it was granted on the third Bail Application merely after a month of rejection of second Bail Application, when there was no change of circumstances. 36. The Respondent has sufficiently explained that the Complaint got filed against him on 04.12.2020 and filing of the Chargesheet in itself was a complete change in circumstances. As held in the case of Laxman Irappa Hatti, (supra) the considerations for grant of Bail at the stage of investigation which are material is whether the accused would present himself for investigation and cooperate in the investigations and that he would not hamper the investigations or tamper with the evidence of witnesses. 37. However, once Chargesheet gets filed, these co....