2022 (3) TMI 1478 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - bogus billing scam - passing of wrong input tax credit - It is the say of the applicant that though the complaint is exhaustive running into several pages but no concrete material is available against the accused - HELD THAT - The allegations which are leveled in the main criminal case are very serious in nature involving not only the main accused persons but several other accused persons and without their connivance this organized crime might not have taken place. The allegations which are leveled are related to economic offence and as such without opining clearly on these allegations which is not called for at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that offence is serious in nature in which to some extent a finger is clearly pointed out against the applicant and as such the Court is not inclined to exercise the discretion. At this stage the Court is mindful of the situation that Court is not expected to undertake exercise critical analysis of any material in anticipatory bail application but then when the petition for quashing after arguing was withdrawn almost on similar submissions and earlier application for anticipatory bail application was also withdrawn, this Court is not inclined to allow the applicant to re-agitate the very same kind of submissions that applicant is an innocent person or there is no material connecting the applicant with commission of crime since all these points have already been agitated in earlier round of application. This Court is of the clear opinion that no case is made out at all of anticipatory bail particularly when it was clearly found not by once but on more than one occasion that the applicant is a part of this organized crime of economic offence and has been found to be not co-operating with the investigating officer though might have remained present for some occasion but it was clearly found from the reply affidavit of investigating officer that this very applicant is the owner of one of the companies which is involved in activity of bogus bills scam. Therefore, when the applicant is found to have indulged himself in such economic offence this Court is not at all inclined to exercise the discretion and that too in the absence of any other change of circumstance though this change of circumstance concept may not be in anticipatory bail. This Court deems it proper not to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant since no exceptional circumstance is pointed, which may persuade the Court to exercise the discretion in his favour. In considered opinion of this Court the applicant has miserably failed in making out a case for anticipatory bail - Accordingly, present application stands rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Allegations of Economic Offences and GST Evasion.
3. Successive Applications for Anticipatory Bail.
4. Judicial Discretion in Economic Offences.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Criminal Case No.1382 of 2020. The applicant argued that he was not named as an accused in the original complaint but feared arrest due to his alleged involvement in a bogus billing scam. The court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly. The court emphasized that the applicant had previously filed similar applications which were either withdrawn or rejected, indicating no change in circumstances to justify a new application.

2. Allegations of Economic Offences and GST Evasion:
The complaint alleged that the main accused, along with others, including the applicant, had opened several fictitious firms to issue bogus bills and obtain undue tax credits, causing significant financial loss to the state exchequer. The court recognized the seriousness of the allegations, which involved a systematic organized activity of economic offence, including tax evasion running into crores of rupees. The court cited the need for custodial interrogation to uncover concealed information and emphasized the gravity of economic offences, which require a different approach in matters of bail.

3. Successive Applications for Anticipatory Bail:
The court observed that the applicant had previously filed applications for anticipatory bail, which were either withdrawn or rejected. The court noted that successive anticipatory bail applications should not be entertained unless there is a significant change in circumstances, which was not evident in this case. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance that successive applications for anticipatory bail should be discouraged, especially when the accused is not cooperating with the investigation.

4. Judicial Discretion in Economic Offences:
The court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion in cases involving economic offences. It referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that economic offences are serious in nature and should be dealt with strictly. The court noted that granting anticipatory bail in such cases could hamper the investigation and allow the accused to tamper with evidence. The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting the exercise of discretion in his favor.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations, the need for custodial interrogation, and the lack of any significant change in circumstances since the previous applications. The court discharged the rule and vacated the interim relief, denying the applicant's request for an extension of protection against coercive steps.