9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 606 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of Regular Bail - fraudulent availment and utilization of input tax credit - section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court observed that the offences is punishable up to 5 years, compoundable and triable by Court of Magistrate. Admittedly, the complaint against the applicant-accused is yet to be filed. Further, the allegations against the applicant-accused are yet to be established during the trial and trial will take long time. Thus, seeing the quantum of sentence accused is likely to face, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, the liberty of an individual being involved, the period of custody of the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the applicant / accused is entitled for concession of regular bail in this case. The applicant namely, SHRI RAMESHCHANDRA TULSIDAS AGARWAL is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the offence punishable U/s. 132(1)(B) C of the CGST Act, 2017 on furnishing personal bond of ₹ 15,000/- with one surety like amount to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court/ Illaqua Magistrate/concern court - Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
Regular bail application under section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge at Valsad addressed the regular bail application of the applicant-accused who was arrested under section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant-accused was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and has been in judicial custody since the arrest. The allegations against the applicant-accused included involvement in fraudulent activities related to Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to a substantial sum. The statement of a witness indicated connections with non-existent firms and fraudulent utilization of ITC. The defense argued for bail, highlighting the advanced age of the accused, readiness to cooperate with the investigation, and the potential delay in the trial process. The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations, potential adverse economic impact, and the admissibility of the accused's confession. Various judgments were referred to by the prosecution to support their arguments, but the court found the facts distinguishable and not favorable to the prosecution's case. The court considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail custody is an exception. Refusal of bail was noted as a restriction on the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the offense in question was punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years, compoundable, and triable by a Magistrate. Notably, no complaint had been filed against the applicant-accused, and the allegations were yet to be proven during the trial, which was expected to be prolonged. Considering the gravity of the offense, potential severity of punishment, the individual's liberty at stake, and the period of custody already undergone by the accused, the court concluded that the applicant-accused was entitled to the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the accused on furnishing a personal bond with specified conditions to ensure compliance during the trial proceedings. In conclusion, the judgment granted the applicant-accused regular bail in connection with the offense under the CGST Act, 2017, emphasizing the importance of balancing individual liberty with the seriousness of the allegations and the potential punishment involved. The conditions imposed upon the release of the accused aimed to ensure his presence during trial proceedings and prevent any further similar offenses or tampering with evidence.
|
