9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 354 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of Bail - availing and passing of fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without any actual supplies of goods - bogus invoices - fraudulently making loss of revenue to the Government - violation of Section 132(1) (b) and (c) r/w. 132(5) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Offence committed by the applicant is economic offene which is well planned. In the investigation of the respondent, non existent/fake suppliers were noticed. Applicant availed benefit of ITC on the basis of fake invoices. Investigation is till in progress. There is documentary evidence against the applicant of his involvement in the commission of the crime. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case to grant bail - bail application dismissed.
Issues:
Grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for violation of Section 132(1)(b) and (c) r/w. 132(5) of CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The applicant, a proprietor of M/s. Shah Enterprises, is accused of engaging in a network of entities to avail and pass fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supplies of goods, causing a loss of revenue to the government. The prosecution alleges that the applicant violated the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 by availing inadmissible ITC through fictitious/non-existent suppliers. Out of 27 suppliers disclosed by the applicant, 14 had canceled/suspended GSTIN numbers. The total amount of fraudulently availed ITC is Rs. 5,90,28,310, with a total amount involved in the offense being Rs. 11,80,56,620. The applicant, aged 24 and recently married, argued for bail, stating he is a scrap trader who maintained records and provided details of transactions to the respondent. He offered to freeze the outstanding amount to the suppliers and requested bail on any terms. However, the prosecution opposed the bail application, highlighting ongoing investigations into fake/non-existent suppliers and the potential for the applicant to tamper with evidence or alert others if released on bail. The judge, after considering both sides, concluded that the offense committed by the applicant was well-planned economic crime involving fake invoices and non-existent suppliers. With documentary evidence of the applicant's involvement in the offense and ongoing investigations, the judge deemed it not a fit case for granting bail, leading to the rejection and disposal of Bail Application No. 229 of 2022.
|
