2018 (9) TMI 1904 - HC - GST

Power of Commissioner to arrest the offender - Section 69 of The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - offence under Sections 132(1)(b),(c), (d), (f), (I) and (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Petitioner and her co-accused in connivance with each other had made 35 fake firms and after making fake entries had issued invoices involving tax amount of more than Rupees Ten Crores. In her statement recorded on 02.08.2018, petitioner has admitted that she had prepared fake firms after accepting fee from her coaccused on the basis of fake ID s and documents. The firms were misused for evading GST by Sandeep Goyal and Rajesh Arora. Case is still under investigation. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail to her is made out - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Petition under Section 439 CrPC relating to GST Act offences - Bail application denied based on seriousness of allegations.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with a case involving offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c), (d), (f), (I), and (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These offences are punishable under Section 132(1)(I) and (iv) of the said Act. The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, was implicated in a case involving the creation of 35 fake firms resulting in tax evasion exceeding Rupees Ten Crores. The petitioner cooperated during the investigation but was arrested based on serious allegations. The petitioner, a young lady with a minor child, denied being a beneficiary and claimed innocence regarding the allegations.

The State counsel opposed the petition, citing the Commissioner's power to arrest offenders under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was alleged that the petitioner and her co-accused colluded to create fake firms, issue invoices, and evade GST. The petitioner admitted to preparing fake firms for her co-accused using fake IDs and documents, which were then misused for tax evasion purposes. The case was still under investigation at the time of the judgment. The State argued that due to the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

The court, considering the gravity of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, found no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner and dismissed the petition. The decision was based on the seriousness of the offences, the amount involved in tax evasion, and the petitioner's admitted involvement in creating fake firms for tax evasion purposes.