9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 593 - SCH - GSTSeeking grant of bail - availment of irregular Input tax credit - fake invoices - offence punishable under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Having regard to the period of custody which has been undergone by the appellants and that the co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the appellants, Ramchandra Vishnoi and Himmat Singh Bhati, are directed to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. Application allowed.
Issues: Bail application rejection based on earlier dismissal, Alleged offence under Section 132 of CGST Act, Length of custody, Disparity in bail granted to co-accused
In the present case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the rejection of a bail application by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan on the grounds of a previous dismissal. The appellants were accused of committing an offence under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 by siphoning Input-Tax credit against fake invoices. The criminal case was lodged before the Special Judge/ACMM (Economic Offences), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, with the first bail application being dismissed by the trial court and the Additional Sessions Judge subsequently rejecting the bail application. The final report/complaint was filed before the ACMM, and the appellants had been in custody for nearly 14 months. Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that one of the co-accused was granted bail by the High Court, while another co-accused was granted bail by the Supreme Court. Considering the period of custody undergone by the appellants and the bail granted to co-accused, the Supreme Court directed the release of the appellants on bail, namely Ramchandra Vishnoi and Himmat Singh Bhati, subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. The conditions for bail included depositing any passport with the competent court and regular reporting to the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned at least once in a fortnight. Ultimately, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals and any pending applications in the matter. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the length of custody, the nature of the alleged offence, and the disparity in bail granted to co-accused while determining the grant of bail to the appellants.
|
