9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 432 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - availment of illegal input tax credit - It is alleged that on the basis of forged documents, the firm has been registered and these firms have availed input tax credit on the basis of bogus invoice(s) - HELD THAT - On perusal of the record, the fact that proceedings under section 74 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act are going on, as also the judgment in SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till filing of the police report, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned - The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation and they will not influence the witnesses. The accused-applicants will remain present as and when the arresting officer /I.O./ S.H.O. concerned call (s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Application allowed.
Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving various sections of IPC and the Information & Technology Act. 2. Allegations of discrepancies in firms leading to the lodging of a first information report. 3. Claim of civil nature dispute and lack of criminal antecedents by the applicants. 4. Opposition by the Additional Government Advocate citing ongoing investigation. 5. Granting of protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. until the filing of the police report. Analysis: 1. The bail application was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a case involving sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC and section 66 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000. The applicants, who are proprietors of registered firms, sought protection due to apprehension of arrest in connection with the case registered at P.S. Dargah Shareef, district Bahraich. 2. The first information report was lodged based on alleged discrepancies found during an inspection at certain firms, leading to accusations of registration based on forged documents and availing input tax credit through bogus invoices. While no direct allegations were made against the applicants' firm, their names were mentioned in the report, resulting in the issuance of summons. The applicants participated in proceedings under section 74 of U.P. G.S.T. Act, emphasizing the civil nature of the dispute. 3. The applicants claimed that the alleged offense falls under section 132 of U.P. G.S.T. Act and highlighted their cooperation in the ongoing proceedings related to the disputed tax amount. They asserted their lack of criminal antecedents and emphasized the bona fide nature of their business operations, including regular GST filings. 4. The Additional Government Advocate opposed the bail prayer, citing the ongoing investigation as a reason. However, the court, after considering the aspects of the matter, the ongoing proceedings under U.P. G.S.T. Act, and a relevant judgment, decided to grant protection to the applicants under Section 438 Cr.P.C. until the filing of the police report. 5. The court allowed the bail application, providing conditions for release upon arrest, including furnishing a personal bond and sureties, cooperation in the investigation, non-influence of witnesses, and restrictions on leaving India without court permission. Failure to comply would allow the investigating agency to take appropriate action, ensuring the applicants' adherence to the conditions set forth by the court.
|
