9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1131 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - fake ITC passed without any actual supply of goods - bogus firms - offence under Section 132 (1) (b) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - As far as creation of firm is concerned, again since the entire process was online, at least, technical investigation in this regard is required and is wanting. However, considering that investigation is being carried out, also the fact that as on date, there is no independent evidence other than the statements against the accused, as also, the fact that he has already spent more than 35 days in JC, as also, considering that co-accused has already been admitted to bail and Department has not sought the cancellation of the bail of co-accused, the present accused Shubham Goyal is also admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds/surety bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned MM/Duty MM subject to the conditions imposed. Application allowed.
Issues: Bail application for accused under Section 132 (1) (b) of CGST Act, 2017.
The judgment involves a bail application for the accused, who is alleged to have committed an offense under Section 132 (1) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The accused, along with other individuals, rented virtual space on a server to store data related to bogus firms registered with GST, leading to the generation of fake bills and passing of fake ITC without actual supply of goods. The applicant has been in custody for over 35 days, during which no custodial interrogation has taken place. The defense argues that no show cause notice or assessment order has been issued in the matter, citing previous judgments to support the claim that the offense is compoundable. The defense emphasizes the role of the main accused, who was granted bail earlier, and questions the delay in filing a complaint against him. The defense highlights differences in the roles attributed to the accused and the main accused, arguing for bail based on the time already spent in custody and the lack of progress in the case. The Department opposes the bail application, asserting that the accused was directly involved in preparing fake bills for 28 firms used in the fraudulent activity. The Department acknowledges the reliance on statements of the accused but admits to the lack of technical investigation or concrete evidence linking the accused to the offenses. The Department is still investigating the matter and aims to gather material to support the allegations. The defense argues that technical investigation is necessary due to the online nature of the process and the lack of independent evidence beyond statements. Despite this, considering the time spent in custody, the lack of evidence, and the bail granted to the main accused without opposition from the Department, the accused is granted bail on specified conditions, including surrendering the passport, providing prior intimation before leaving the NCR, and refraining from engaging in similar offenses or tampering with evidence. In conclusion, the bail application for the accused under Section 132 (1) (b) of the CGST Act, 2017 is disposed of with the accused being granted bail on specified conditions, given the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by both the defense and the Department.
|
