2022 (7) TMI 126 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Bail - illegal availment of ITC - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Following aspects are considered I) Investigation is concluded as the complaint has been filed. II) The applicant is in custody since 22082021; III) Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submitted that co-accused who were also part of the system in claiming fraud ITC, have been enlarged on default bail. IV) Considering the maximum sentence of 5 years. V) Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant under instruction submitted that the applicant is ready and wiling to deposit an amount of Rupees One Crore Only within the period of six months; VI) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor under the instructions of the Investigating Officer is unable to bring on record any special circumstances against the applicant. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the First Information Report, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail - The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(k) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application seeking regular bail in connection with a case registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The applicant's senior advocate argued for bail, emphasizing the nature of the offence and proposing suitable conditions. On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offence. The respondent Department's senior advocate highlighted the complexity of the investigation, the magnitude of the claims amounting to Rs. 217 crores, and the unresolved aspects of the case, including identifying the supplier and buyer of invoices and tracing the money trail through Angadia.

The court considered various aspects, including the conclusion of the investigation upon filing the complaint, the applicant's custody since a specific date, and the bail granted to co-accused involved in the fraud scheme. The court also took into account the maximum sentence applicable, the applicant's willingness to deposit a significant sum within a specified period, and the absence of any adverse circumstances against the applicant as per the Investigating Officer's instructions. The court referred to a legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation.

After evaluating the allegations without delving into detailed evidence, the court exercised discretion and granted the applicant regular bail. The bail order included conditions such as executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, not leaving the state without permission, marking monthly presence at the police station, periodic deposit of a specified amount, providing residence details, and not interfering with the investigation. The court emphasized that the trial court should not be influenced by its preliminary observations while granting bail.

The court directed the authorities to release the applicant unless required for another offence, with the provision for appropriate action in case of breaching bail conditions. The bail bond execution was assigned to the lower court, which could modify or relax the conditions as per legal requirements. The judgment concluded by allowing the application in the specified terms and granting permission for direct service.