9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 611 - HC - GSTGrant of regular bail - offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 punishable under Section 132 (1)(i) and (iv) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 read with Section 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Petitioner has submitted that all the accused had created 35 fake firms and after making fake entries, had issued invoices involving tax amount of more than 66.81 crores. The firms were misused for evading G.S.T. input taxes by the accused. The fake firms were created in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Gujarat, Assam, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner, no ground for grant of bail to her is made out. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under CGST Act 2017 - Involvement in creation of fake firms for tax evasion. Analysis: The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, punishable under Section 132 (1)(i) and (iv) of the same Act. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.08.2018 and claimed innocence in the matter, asserting false implication. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued in favor of bail, contending that the petitioner had been wrongly implicated in the case. However, the Standing Counsel for G.S.T. presented a different perspective, alleging that the accused, including the petitioner, had established 35 fake firms and conducted fraudulent activities involving tax evasion amounting to over 66.81 crores. The fake firms were utilized to evade G.S.T. input taxes across various states. Considering the gravity of the accusations against the petitioner regarding the creation of fake firms and involvement in substantial tax evasion activities, the court found no valid grounds for granting bail. Consequently, the petition for bail was dismissed, upholding the decision based on the seriousness of the allegations and the potential impact of the petitioner's release on the ongoing investigation and judicial process.
|
