2023 (3) TMI 269 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - wrongful availment of ITC - Section 132 of the Punjab Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the petitioner was granted interim bail by this Court vide order dated 27.05.2022 and he has appeared before learned trial Court in pursuance to the same. However, both the counsel have disputed the amount of ITC involved in the present case. The specific stand of the respondent-complainant is that the amount involved is about Rs.7.22 crores and once the amount is more than Rs.5.00 crores, offence is nonbailable. This Court while dealing with the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case specifically regarding the amount alleged to have been wrongly availed as the same lies within the domain of the trial Court to decide on the basis of the evidence to be led by the respective parties. However, confining itself to the prayer made for anticipatory bail, interim order dated 27.05.2022 is made absolute subject to his complying with the conditions as envisaged under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Sections 132 of CGST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017 based on disputed amount of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of wrongly availing ITC under Sections 132 of CGST Act, 2017 and Punjab GST Act, 2017. The petitioner had appeared before the trial Court following interim protection granted earlier. The petitioner's counsel argued that although the calculated amount was below Rs.5.00 crores, specific accusations claimed the ITC availed was Rs.7.00 crores, justifying the need for anticipatory bail due to the non-bailable nature of the offense if the amount exceeded Rs.5.00 crores as per the Punjab GST Act, 2017.

The respondent, while acknowledging the petitioner's appearance in compliance with interim bail conditions, opposed the grant of bail. The respondent contended that the petitioner was also required in other ongoing investigations, distinct from the present matter. The respondent asserted that the ITC availed by the petitioner amounted to Rs.7.22 crores, emphasizing the non-bailable nature of the offense due to the amount exceeding Rs.5.00 crores as per the relevant law.

Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Court noted the conflicting claims regarding the exact amount of ITC involved in the case. Recognizing that the determination of the amount and subsequent bail implications fall under the trial Court's jurisdiction based on evidence presented, the Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, making the interim order absolute, subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions outlined in Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was directed to continue appearing before the trial Court as per its directives to ensure ongoing cooperation with the legal proceedings.