2021 (3) TMI 709 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Application rejected on the ground that the applicant has no reason to believe that he may be arrested in a non bailable offence and that the reasons must be founded on reasonable grounds - illegal availment of ITC on GST, on the basis of forged invoices - Creation of fake firms - HELD THAT - In this case accused has been shown as the person who has been avoiding the investigation since 2019 even not responding to the summons and notices of the department which has resulted into delay in the investigation. In order to seek such relief the accused should have come with clean hands and as per the averments of the defendant despite having registered the firm at the address of Faridabad, he has not responded to the communication of the department. Apart from this, other co-accused whose case was on similar footing was granted bail after his arrest and here in this case accused is coming for anticipatory bail while apprehending arrest from the department. Therefore, the ground of parity cannot be said to be applicable to the applicant on this application. There are no ground to grant protection by way of anticipatory bail - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application based on apprehension of arrest in a false case involving fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ?13.12 crores.

Analysis:
The matter was brought before the court as per the directions of the High Court and the Principal District & Sessions Judge. The applicant sought bail, claiming no liability in the case and citing participation in proceedings before the GST Department. The applicant's senior counsel referenced specific judgments to support the bail application. However, the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP) vehemently opposed the bail, arguing that the application lacked merit as there was no reasonable belief of arrest in a non-bailable offense. The SPP highlighted the gravity of the offense, alleging fraudulent ITC availment amounting to ?13.12 crores by the accused's firms. The accused was accused of evading investigation and not cooperating despite multiple notices. The SPP supported their arguments with legal precedents, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds for anticipatory bail.

The allegations against the accused included fraudulent ITC availment through non-existent suppliers and forged invoices, totaling ?13.12 crores. The accused, associated with multiple firms, was accused of tax evasion and non-cooperation with authorities. Despite being summoned several times, the accused allegedly avoided investigation, causing delays. The court noted the lack of deposits from the accused's side and the need for the accused to cooperate transparently. The court also considered the bail granted to a co-accused in a similar case, emphasizing the need for the accused to engage with the investigation process. The court concluded that, given the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the lack of cooperation, anticipatory bail was not warranted, leading to the dismissal of the application. The judgment was delivered, denying the protection of anticipatory bail to the applicant.