9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 855 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Regular Bail - wrong availment of Input Tax Credit - Section 132 (1) (c) of the Central GST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The order relied upon the counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sourabh Singla in RAKESH ARORA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 2021 (2) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT wherein regular bail had been denied to the petitioner therein was primarily on the ground that the investigation was still incomplete. In the instant case that would not be so. The matter already stands investigated and the challan stands presented and therefore, custody of the petitioner herein would not longer be required. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 132 (1) (c) of the Central GST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017 for wrong availment of Input Tax Credit. Analysis: The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered by the State Tax Officer under Section 132 (1) (c) of the Central GST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017, alleging wrong availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner argued that a liability of &8377; 6.30 crores was imposed, although an amount of &8377; 5.18 crores was disputed, with an entry of &8377; 1.12 crores already reversed. The absence of an FIR or complaint at the time of filing the petition was highlighted, indicating a forthcoming trial. Additionally, a challenge to the vires of Section 69 and 132 of the CGST Act was mentioned in a separate case, questioning the jurisdiction of the arrest under Section 69 of the Punjab GST Act. The petitioner emphasized that the investigation was completed, and the challan was presented, making continued custody unnecessary. The petitioner relied on past orders granting bail to similarly situated individuals, citing cases like Ganga Ram Vs. State of Punjab and Deepak Mittal Vs. Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence. Reference was also made to an interim order from the Bombay High Court involving wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. In opposition, the respondent-State, represented by the State Tax Officer, opposed bail, referring to a previous order denying bail in a different case. However, the Court noted that the investigation in the present case was concluded, and the challan was submitted, indicating no further need for custody. After considering the arguments and reviewing relevant orders, the Court granted the petitioner regular bail on the execution of a personal/surety bond of &8377; 10 lakhs to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner was directed to surrender their passport, stay in India unless permitted by the Court, and clarified that the decision on bail should not be construed as a judgment on the case's merits.
|
