9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1235 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Bail - availment of fraudulent credit - issuance of fake bills without supply of coal - retraction of statements - Compoundable offences or not - HELD THAT - The statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the retraction of the same would definitely be considered by the appropriate court at appropriate stage. Be that as it may, the position as of now is that the petitioner not only made statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act but he made implicating statement. It also appears from such statement that he has co-operated with the investigation and there is no allegation that he has not co-operated with the investigation of the case. There is no dispute at the bar that the offence involved in this case is compoundable. On perusal of the record, it is found that there is no entry/note in the record after 06.09.2021, meaning thereby that no further investigation is either carried out or recorded thereafter. In the meantime, the accused-petitioner has been in custody for 30 (thirty) days, as on date. In the instant case, taking into account the alleged amount of evasion of tax, the case falls under Section 132(1)(i) of the AGST Act and the punishment prescribed for such an offence may extend to imprisonment for 5 (five) years and with fine - the accused-petitioner, named above, be released on bail in connection with the abovementioned case on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC. 2. Allegations of GST evasion under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act. 3. Statements and evidence collected under Section 70 of the CGST Act. 4. Co-operation with investigation and previous bail granted to co-accused. 5. Legal precedents and principles for granting bail in economic offences. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC: The petitioner sought bail in connection with GST Case No. CGST/DGGI/INV/GST/2337/2021. The application was filed under Section 439 of the Cr.PC. The petitioner was accused of contravening Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(f) of the CGST Act, punishable under Section 132(1)(i). 2. Allegations of GST Evasion: The case involved allegations against the petitioner for issuing fake GST invoices without actual supply of goods, leading to GST evasion amounting to ?15,05,99,941. The investigation revealed that 2151 e-way bills were bogus, and vehicles mentioned in those bills did not transport any goods from Gujarat/Haryana/Ludhiana to Guwahati. 3. Statements and Evidence Collected: During the investigation, the petitioner’s mobile phone was seized, and incriminating documents were found. The petitioner admitted in his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act that he issued fake GST invoices and did not supply any goods covered under such invoices. The statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses and was signed by the petitioner. 4. Co-operation with Investigation and Previous Bail Granted to Co-accused: The petitioner co-operated with the investigation and appeared before the CGST authority as summoned. The co-accused in connected cases were granted default bail due to the failure of the CGST authority to complete the investigation within the statutory period of 60 days. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner should be granted bail on similar grounds. 5. Legal Precedents and Principles for Granting Bail in Economic Offences: The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI and P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the need for a different approach in granting bail for economic offences. The court considered factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and the likelihood of securing the presence of the accused at trial. Conclusion: The court concluded that the petitioner deserved to be granted bail, considering his co-operation with the investigation, the absence of any indication that he would evade trial or tamper with witnesses, and the fact that he had already been in custody for 30 days. The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bail bond of ?1,00,000 with two suitable sureties, subject to conditions such as not leaving the jurisdiction without permission, depositing his passport, and not tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses. Final Order: The petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure his presence during the trial and prevent any interference with the investigation.
|
