2022 (12) TMI 85 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - availment of irregular input tax credit - non-existing firms and suppliers - offences u/s 132 of CGST Act - HELD THAT - It is evident that applicant and Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain control and operate alleged firms. The allegations against co-accused and applicant are similar and co-accused Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and applicant's case is similar with co-accused, who has been granted bail and keeing in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, SATENDRA KUMAR ANTIL VERSUS C.B.I. AND ANOTHER 2021 (10) TMI 1296 - SUPREME COURT , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed - Let the applicant, Jagvinder Singh, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

Allegations and Offences:
The bail application was filed by the applicant in a case involving allegations of availing fake Input Tax Credit amounting to crores through non-existent firms. The complaint stated that the applicant and a co-accused were involved in creating fake firms, issuing bogus invoices, and facilitating fraudulent Input Tax Credit to various business buyers. The total amount of fraudulent ITC involved was substantial, leading to serious charges under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017.

Arguments for Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant had no criminal history, the trial might be delayed due to heavy dockets, and the applicant had been in custody since a specific date. It was also highlighted that the co-accused had been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of the Court, emphasizing similarities in their cases. The applicant's counsel stressed that the applicant was not a previous convict and was unlikely to misuse bail if granted.

Opposition to Bail:
The learned Additional Government Advocate and counsel for the informant opposed the bail plea, citing the serious nature of the offence, the applicant's active role in the alleged crime as admitted, and the substantial evidence recovered during searches at the applicant's premises. It was argued that the offence committed fell under Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, making it cognizable and non-bailable.

Court's Decision:
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Court noted the similarities between the applicant's case and that of the co-accused who had been granted bail previously. The Court also referred to relevant legal provisions and precedents, including the nature of the offence, the evidence available, and the accused's involvement. Without expressing an opinion on the case's merits, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail, and hence, granted the bail application.

Bail Conditions:
The Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included non-tampering with evidence, cooperation in the trial process, and refraining from criminal activities. Any breach of these conditions would be grounds for bail cancellation.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, arguments, opposition, court's decision, and imposed bail conditions, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the reasoning behind the Court's decision to grant bail.