9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 211 - HC - GSTGrant of Interim Bail - offences u/s 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Input Tax Credit availed on the basis of invoices without there being actual sale of goods - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the custody period and also the fact that the maximum sentence provided for the offence in question is 5 years and that the vires of the Act is itself under challenge, the petitions merits acceptance and are hereby accepted and the interim directions dated 10.7.2020, 18.5.2020 and 6.7.2020 are hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a case under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill of the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertains to three petitions seeking regular bail in connection with a criminal complaint under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Punjab Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners were accused of availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to approximately ?19.83 crores based on invoices without actual sale of goods. The vires of the Act itself had been challenged in a separate case, and notice of motion had been issued by the Division Bench of the Court. The Court noted that the challenge to the Act was not disputed by the State counsel. Previously, the petitioners had been granted interim bail due to the ongoing challenge to the Act. The petitioners argued that as they had already spent over 9 months in custody and the maximum sentence for the offense was 5 years, further detention would serve no purpose, especially since the trial was not expected to conclude soon. On the other hand, the State counsel contended that due to the significant amount involved in the alleged scam, exceeding ?19 crores, bail should not be granted. After considering the arguments, the Court found merit in the petitioners' contentions, taking into account the time spent in custody, the maximum sentence, and the ongoing challenge to the Act. Consequently, the petitions were accepted, and the interim directions for bail were made absolute on the same terms and conditions as previously ordered.
|
