2022 (2) TMI 1050 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - drawing fictitious statements of accounts - drawing of forged invoices - Section 16 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly the bail applicant was working as a chartered accountant with proprietorship concerns. If he had purportedly not prepared above fictitious invoices and statements of accounts the above offence would not have occurred. It is a matter of evidence whether the bail applicant has scribed either the invoices concerned or the statements of accounts concerned or has loaded them on to the electronic devices concerned. Obviously hence prima-facie at this stage the above role as ascribed by the prosecution to the bail petitioner cannot be tested and only after collection of evidence with respect to the afore it can be concluded by the Inspector concerned rather in his final report qua whether the inculpatory role as ascribed to the bail petitioner becoming supported by the apposite thereto credible evidence as becomes collected by him. This Court cannot at this stage determine the validity of the incriminatory role as scribed to the bail petitioner by the prosecution. Moreover since the bail petitioner did prima-facie ably facilitate the above entities in the commission of the offences. However when at this stage though there is no tangible evidence suggestive of his being a beneficiary of the illegal drawings from the government treasury concerned of monetary sums concerned through the above purported illegal recoursing of passings off. Moreover when even with respect of the above the evidence is not completely collected and is in the stage of becoming investigated and also collected. Subject to the conditions being complied with by the petitioner before the learned trial Judge concerned the instant petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Alleged offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; Bail application; Conditions for granting bail.

In this judgment, the petitioner, a chartered accountant alleged to have committed an offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, was arrested. The prosecution accuses the petitioner of facilitating illegal benefits through fictitious statements of accounts and forged invoices for two entities, resulting in an alleged illegal availing of Rs. 18.01 crores under Section 16 of the Act. The court notes that if the petitioner had not prepared the fictitious documents, the offence would not have occurred. It emphasizes that the prosecution's allegations cannot be conclusively tested at this stage, as evidence collection is ongoing.

The court acknowledges that while the petitioner may have facilitated the entities in committing the offences, there is no tangible evidence yet suggesting his direct benefit from the illegal activities. Despite ongoing investigations and lack of conclusive evidence, the court finds that the incriminatory role attributed to the petitioner may not hold strong against him at this stage. Considering the petitioner's prolonged judicial incarceration since his arrest, the court deems further detention as unnecessary and potentially infringing on his personal liberty.

However, the court also recognizes the gravity of the allegations and the need to prevent the petitioner from fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Therefore, the court imposes conditions for granting bail, including the petitioner providing his ancestral house as personal surety. These conditions are deemed just and reasonable by the court, ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the legal process and preventing any interference with the investigation.

Ultimately, subject to the petitioner complying with the imposed conditions, the court allows the bail application and orders the petitioner's release from judicial custody. The petitioner is directed to not flee from justice, tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and to appear before the trial court as required, unless validly exempted.