2021 (11) TMI 641 - HC - GST

Seeking unconditional withdrawal of this application - grant of anticipatory bail - irregular availment of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT - The letter dated 13/08/2021 sent by GST Authorities to the co-accused has nothing to do with the present applicant. In any case, the particular letter relied on by Shri Kadam dated 13/08/2021 is issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Central GST, Belapur to M/s.Bansal Traders. In the letter it is specifically mentioned that no comments could be offered on whether goods have been supplied or otherwise. In any case, if the co accused Bansal has or has not claimed benefit of Input Tax Credit; it is strictly business of co-accused Bansal. The present applicant, in any case, has nothing to do with such filing of form, by co-accused. There are no change in circumstances in favour of the present applicant. On the earlier occasion, responsible statement was made by learned counsel for the applicant for withdrawal of the application after the matter was fully argued and after the material against the applicant was examined. Earlier the application was withdrawn unconditionally - application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of second anticipatory bail application after unconditional withdrawal of the first application.
2. Claimed changes in circumstances by the applicant.
3. Evaluation of the alleged changes in circumstances.
4. Relevance of the letter from GST Authorities.
5. Decision on the second anticipatory bail application.

Analysis:

1. The applicant filed a second anticipatory bail application after unconditionally withdrawing the first application. The court noted the earlier withdrawal and the subsequent filing without surrendering before the police.

2. The applicant claimed changes in circumstances, citing the rejection and subsequent interim protection granted to a co-accused in a related matter. The applicant also mentioned a reply from APMC regarding the case's goods not reflecting in their records.

3. The court evaluated the claimed changes and found them insufficient to favor the present applicant. Separate allegations against the applicant in the FIR were considered, and the court emphasized that the earlier withdrawal occurred after a full argument and consideration of the applicant's role and the evidence against him.

4. Regarding the letter dated 13/08/2021 from GST Authorities, the court clarified that it was issued to the co-accused and did not directly involve the present applicant. The court highlighted that the content of the letter pertained to the co-accused's activities, such as claiming Input Tax Credit, and not the applicant.

5. Ultimately, the court concluded that there were no substantial changes in circumstances in favor of the present applicant. Given the previous withdrawal of the first application after full consideration, the court rejected the second anticipatory bail application, emphasizing that the earlier withdrawal was made after a responsible statement by the applicant's counsel following a thorough examination of the material against the applicant.