2023 (1) TMI 784 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - Fraudulent availment of ITC - non-existent firms - bail application opposed on the ground of previous involvement and non-cooperative behaviour of the applicant/accused - HELD THAT - Huge amount of passing of fraudulent ITC through non-existent firms has been alleged against the applicant who is not cooperating in the investigations also. The previous involvement of the accused in similar type of offences is also brought to the notice although which has not been denied by the applicant but submitted that the present case only deals with respect to the said period only for which he has already been granted bail. It has been contradicted by the department by saying that previous case qua the arrest and investigation was upto 2019 whereas investigation in the present case was carried out for subsequent period of time. Non filing of the complaint till date as averred by the Ld. Defence counsel is not tenable at this stage. The present case is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - The application stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC based on allegations of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) by non-existent firms without actual receipt of goods or services, non-cooperation in investigation, previous criminal antecedents, and pending investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail: The applicant filed an application under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The predecessor judge had previously granted interim protection against the applicant's arrest, with directions to cooperate in the investigation. However, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) submitted that the applicant was not cooperating and had not provided necessary information despite repeated requests.

2. Allegations of Fraudulent ITC: The case involved an investigation by DGGI Meerut against two firms for the fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to Rs.46.54 Crores during 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. The accused firms were alleged to have dealt with multiple non-existent firms for this purpose. The applicant denied the allegations, stating that the tax amount for the relevant period was lower than claimed by the department.

3. Non-Cooperation and Previous Involvement: The defense counsel argued that the case against the applicant was false, and the goods had indeed been moved as per the invoices. The applicant had joined the investigation as directed by the court, as reflected in the order-sheet. The defense counsel cited previous judgments in support of the applicant's case.

4. Department's Allegations: The department contended that the applicant had been non-cooperative, refusing to open his email for verification and failing to provide details of shareholders. It was argued that the present case involved further fraudulent availment of ITC, distinct from a previous case, and that ongoing investigation might uncover more incriminating evidence.

5. Decision and Rationale: The court considered the facts, the applicant's role, previous criminal antecedents, and the pending investigation. Despite the applicant's arguments and denial of allegations, the court found the case unsuitable for granting anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for further investigation.

6. Conclusion: The court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, highlighting the substantial amount of fraudulent ITC involved, the lack of cooperation in the investigation, and the applicant's previous criminal antecedents. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the ongoing investigation, indicating that the applicant's involvement in fraudulent activities warranted further scrutiny.