2022 (10) TMI 618 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - Jurisdiction to entertain the present application - accused/applicant has been summoned for prosecution regarding availment of ITC without actually receipt of goods - evasion of GST - creation of 12 fake suppliers of goods - section 16 of CGST Act 2017 - HELD THAT - There are no manner to curtail jurisdiction to entertain the application for anticipatory bail. Hon ble High Court of Delhi in SATISH KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 1990 (9) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT has specifically stated that if the offence having been committed outside the jurisdiction of Delhi, since accused being resident of Delhi can approach the court at Delhi for seeking anticipatory bail. In the present case without touching upon merits of the matter which would be decided later, it is evident that registered office of M/s Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd is in Delhi, even as per reply of the Department some of the fake suppliers were under control and managed by the employees of M/s Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd at Delhi. These facts by itself are clearly indicative that courts at Delhi can entertain the application - this court can entertain present application for bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. At this stage when this court has not considered facts of present case, on merits, no case is made out for giving any interim relief which of course would be decided upon examination of merits of the matter subsequently - Put up this matter on 15.10.2022.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the court to entertain an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

In this judgment, the accused/applicant sought pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. The Department of Anti Evasion Central GST Commissionerate opposed the application based on jurisdictional grounds. The accused was summoned for prosecution for availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual receipt of goods, in violation of section 16 of the CGST Act 2017. The Department alleged evasion of Rs.35 crores of GST through the creation of 12 fake suppliers, including some in Delhi. The accused argued that since some fake suppliers were in Delhi and the registered office of the company was also in Delhi, the Delhi court had jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The prosecution contended that since the evasion occurred in Meerut, the Meerut court had jurisdiction. The court, after considering the arguments, held that the Delhi court could entertain the bail application based on precedents allowing for anticipatory bail where the accused resides or works. The court emphasized that it was deciding jurisdiction only and not the merits of the case.

The accused also cited a judgment where interim relief was granted in a similar case where custodial interrogation was not required. However, the court declined to grant interim relief in this case at this stage, stating that a decision on this matter would be made after examining the merits of the case. The court scheduled the next hearing for further consideration on 15.10.2022.