TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1057
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') dated 10.04.2026 bearing No.CBIC-DIN20260457YT0000613525 are before this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner no.2 is the wife of petitioner no.1. She is the sole proprietrix of a firm known as 'M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Enterprises' which is carrying business of recycling used lead-acid batteries and manufacture of remelted lead ingots. The aforesaid firm is registered under the provisions of the Act and its registration number is 29BIBPG7800CIZO. The respondent had issued summons under Section 70 of the Act dated 10.04.2026 and apprehending arrest, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said purchasers, ITC has been claimed by the petitioners. He submits that, money transferred to the account of fictitious suppliers has been withdrawn and shared by the suppliers and the petitioners and thereby, they have cheated the State Government. Considering the nature of allegations found against the petitioners their custodial interrogation becomes very much necessary. In spite of best efforts made, suppliers of the petitioners are not traced and therefore, it is apparent that invoices raised for supply of goods are all bogus and petitioner no.1 is the master mind of the crime. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner no.2 is holder of valid GST registration certificate and petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the reason that the supplier's of the petitioners are not in existence as on this day or that their GST registration was subsequently cancelled, that itself is not sufficient to say that the petitioners have availed input tax credit using fraudulent invoices or bills referred to in Section 132(1)(b) of the Act. 9. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had earlier appeared before the respondent - authority has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - (2011) 1 SCC 694 in paragraph no.89 has observed as follows: "89. It is imperative fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngly utilizing input tax credit amounting to Rs 31,62,57,181 under Section 132(1)(b) and (c). Since the alleged amount exceeds Rs 500 lakhs, the accused can be punished maximum for five years of imprisonment and with fine. Also Section 138 of the Act states that the offences under the Act shall be compoundable either before or after the prosecution. It is very well possible that the respondent - Department might get the information as required if the petitioner co-operates with the authorities concerned and arrest might not be necessary. 33. The custodial interrogation in the instant matter is neither warranted nor provided for by the statute. Detaining the petitioner in judicial custody would serve no purpose rather would adversel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty of the petitioner, and second to ensure that the investigation is not hampered, procedure of administration of justice is not adversely impacted and ultimately the guilty is prosecuted. 54. These are competing interests included in an anticipatory bail application i.e., the liberty of the accused and the interest of the investigative authorities for discovering the particular of offence. It is the case of the Petitioner that he failed to appear due to his ill health, which evidently no more exists. The other ground pertains to apprehension of arrest, which can be removed by allowing the present application. It is very well possible that the respondent department might get the information as required if the Petitioner cooperate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The respondents or any other authority are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest pursuant to the summons issued to them under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Sales Tax Act, 2017 dated 10.04.2026 bearing No.CBIC-DIN-20260457YT0000613525, subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioners shall appear before the respondent-Authorities at 10.30 a.m., on 20.08.2026 and on the said date, the respondent-authorities shall be at liberty to take them into custody if necessary for the purpose of interrogation. However, it is made clear that after interrogation, the respondent-authorities shall release the petitioners on the same day on or before 06.00 p.m. subject to petitioners executing a personal bond for a....