TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1631
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, respectively, in Crime No.88 of 2025 before the Central Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Sri K. Devendhar, Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Medak Circle, filed a complaint against Sri Vikash Kumar Keshan and Sri Rajneesh Keshan, partners of M/s. Keshaan Industries LLP, GSTN 36ABFFA8447D7D1ZH, having its corporate office at Secunderabad stating that they cheated the Government through fraudulent billing, tax evasion, misrepresentation of facts, and fraudulent movement of goods under the guise of taxable supply. The Commercial Taxes Department found that the firm issued fake tax invoices without actual supply of goods. They generated e-way bills sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s LLP, a bona fide tax-paying entity incorporated in 2016 and duly certified under ISO standards, engaged in manufacturing copper products. He further submitted that the Department itself had conducted search proceedings on 29.07.2025 at both the factory and corporate office and seized all documents, and the present complaint was lodged merely on the basis of suspicion arising out of GST portal entries and toll gate data, without specific details of vehicle numbers, invoices, dates, or transaction values. 5. Learned Senior Counsel contended that no direct role was attributed to the petitioners in issuing fake invoices or dispatching empty vehicles, and mere partnership in the firm could not give rise to criminal liability in the absence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lakshmana v. State Criminal Petition No.2419 of 2020 wherein anticipatory bail was granted in similar GST-related cases on the ground that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Therefore, he submitted the petitioners were innocent, permanent residents with a fixed place of business, ready to cooperate with the investigation, and there was no risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. Hence, he prayed the Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners by allowing this criminal petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter affidavit opposing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel and submitted that the petitioners were partner and designated signatory of M/s Keshan Industries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfluence witnesses, tamper with evidence, and obstruct the investigation and that the investigation was still at a crucial stage, including verification of bank accounts, financial transactions, and examination of technical records. He further contended that one of the partners of the firm had earlier been arrested in a similar case in 2023 and was already on bail. 10. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, wherein it was held that economic offences affect the entire community and cannot be treated lightly. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Joha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ul claims of Input Tax Credit, causing huge loss to the State exchequer. The petitioners, apprehending arrest, relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tarun Jain (cited supra), wherein it was held that offences under the CGST Act, though economic in nature, did not warrant custodial interrogation as the punishment prescribed was not severe and the evidence was primarily documentary. Further, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in the cases of P. Chidambaram, Shravan A. Mehra, Raghav Agrawal, Sapna Jain, and Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana (cited supra), wherein anticipatory bail was granted in similar GST-related cases on the ground that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. 12. Further,....