2021 (6) TMI 231 - DSC - GST

Seeking Grant of Bail - duty evasion by generating goods-less invoices leading to revenue loss - HELD THAT - Ld. Standing Counsel took me through the statement of one Manish Jain who levelled specific allegations against the applicant/accused Amit Jain. He has categorically stated that he used to work for applicant/accused Amit Jain and his associates. It is further submitted that he worked as per the guidance/directions of the applicant/accused and his associates - The allegations of Manish Jain are further corroborated by the voluntary statement of applicant/accused Amit Jain recorded on 26.08.2020. It is evident that the applicant/accused was involved in generation of goods less fake invoices for the purpose of duty evasion - However, the applicant/accused cannot escape his liability u/s 132(1)(b) of the Act. Considering the material available on record, it cannot be contended by the Ld. defence counsel that applicant was not involved in supplying or making available fake/forged goods less invoices - the applicant/accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Instant application is bereft of any merits - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail application based on false implication, involvement in duty evasion through fake invoices, seriousness of allegations, non-bailable offenses under CGST Act, interpretation of Section 132(1)(b).

Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail Application: The applicant/accused sought bail, claiming innocence and false implication in the case. The defense argued that the applicant had no connection with the firms involved in duty evasion and was not engaged in any business due to health reasons. It was emphasized that the applicant neither owned nor managed any business and did not have any GST registration. The defense contended that the applicant was falsely implicated and not guilty of any non-bailable offense.

2. Allegations of Duty Evasion: The department alleged that the applicant was the mastermind behind a syndicate involved in duty evasion through the issuance of fake invoices without supplying goods. Specific allegations were made against the applicant regarding his involvement in providing goods-less invoices of fake firms to clients for tax credit purposes. The department argued that the applicant admitted his liability voluntarily and was involved in offenses under Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act.

3. Seriousness of Allegations: The court considered the severity of the allegations, noting the substantial revenue loss to the government amounting to crores due to duty evasion. Statements from witnesses and the voluntary admission of the applicant were taken into account to assess the gravity of the offenses. The court highlighted the importance of addressing economic offenses seriously to protect the financial health of the country.

4. Non-Bailable Offenses under CGST Act: The court analyzed the provisions of Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, which pertains to issuing invoices without supplying goods leading to wrongful utilization of tax credits. The court emphasized that the offense under this section was non-bailable in nature, and the applicant's involvement in generating fake invoices was established based on the evidence presented.

5. Interpretation of Section 132(1)(b): The court interpreted the term "issues" in Section 132(1)(b) to mean supplying or making available fake/forged goods-less invoices. The court disagreed with the defense's argument that the applicant was not involved in supplying such invoices, concluding that the offense under this section was attracted in the present case, making it non-bailable. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation, the court denied bail to the applicant.

6. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of economic offenses and the need to address them with a different approach. The court highlighted the importance of preventing revenue loss and ensuring that economic offenders are brought to justice. The case was disposed of, with the expectation that the investigating agencies and departments would collaborate effectively to address economic crimes and recover government revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal proceedings, arguments presented by both sides, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the court's decision based on the evidence and seriousness of the allegations.