9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 184 - HC - GSTGrant of Bail - offence registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, read with Section 132(1)(b)(c)(e) and (f) of the Jharkhand Goods Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court directs the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad to file a detail counter affidavit separately in both the cases i.e. in B.A. No.3578/2020 and in B.A. No.4348/2020 with respect to their involvement and defalcation of the money. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad is directed to file affidavit with regard to said certificate issued in favour of Jairam Mahto - Put up this case after three weeks.
Issues: Bail applications arising from a common FIR involving various sections of IPC and the Jharkhand Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017.
In the judgment delivered by the High Court of Jharkhand, the bail applications were considered in relation to a common FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC, read with Section 132(1)(b)(c)(e) and (f) of the Jharkhand Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017. The court heard arguments from both sides, including the petitioner's senior counsel and the State's counsels. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had no connection with a specific entity mentioned in the case and that the petitioner's involvement was based on a statement made while in custody. On the other hand, the State's counsel contended that the petitioner was involved in the case due to using his papers for opening a GSTIN account in another person's name and receiving payment without work. As a result, the court directed the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, to file a detailed counter affidavit regarding the involvement and money defalcation in both cases. Additionally, the State's counsel requested time for filing an affidavit regarding the tax amount allegedly evaded by another petitioner in the case, claiming the petitioner was a poor laborer. The court directed the Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit regarding the certificate issued in favor of the said petitioner. The case was adjourned for three weeks with a clear instruction that no further adjournment would be granted. Furthermore, the office was directed to update the representation of the State's counsels in the respective cases.
|
