2026 (6) TMI 566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b),(c), (f) and (I) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in the above crime registered by the Anti-Evasion Wing, Medchal Commissionerate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 132(1)(b), (c), (f) and (l) read with Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegation against the petitioners is that they deliberately availed and utilized fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of about Rs.21.89 Crores on the strength of fake invoices issued by non-existent firms without actual receipt of goods, thereby causing wrongful lo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of witnesses have also been recorded, and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration of the petitioners and that the entire case is based on documentary evidence already in the custody of the department and there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Therefore, they prayed the Court to grant prearrest bail to the petitioners by allowing these Criminal Petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent department strongly opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail and filed counter affidavit stating that the investigation has revealed that as many as 21 suppliers shown by M/s. Hari Batteries were found to be non-existent at their declared places of business, and the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ody since 28.01.2026 and they have cooperated with the investigation for the last six months. It is their case that most part of the investigation is already completed and there are no concrete allegations against them and that they contend that the petitioners were falsely implicated and therefore they seek grant of bail. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel specifically contended that the investigation is still at a crucial stage. Though the statements of the petitioners were recorded earlier, they did not disclose the true facts and admitted the offence only after they were confronted with material collected during investigation. It is also contended that initially the fraud amount was quantified at Rs.21.89 Crores and there is ev....