9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1315 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of regular bail - irregular availment of Input Tax Credit - violation of provisions of Section 132(1) (b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - On perusal of the record this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail in the present case. No doubt the respondents have levelled specific allegations against the present petitioner yet the criminal liability of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the trial Court during the course of trial. Still further the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 19.04.2023 and the maximum sentence provided under the statute is five years. Still further the case of the prosecution is based on the testimonies of official witnesses and the petitioner may not be in a position to influence the witnesses who are to be produced by the prosecution before the trial Court. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot be confined in jail as an under-trial for an indefinite period. Thus without commenting any further on the merits the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned subject to the conditions imposed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. in complaint case u/s 132(I)(b) & (c) of CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017. Summary: The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a complaint case related to Sections 132(I)(b) & (c) of the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed that mandatory provisions of Section 69 of the GST Act were not followed, leading to an illegal arrest without due process. It was argued that the petitioner did not benefit monetarily, did not supply goods or services without invoices, and did not claim Input Tax Credit. The petitioner had been in custody for 11 months, and the trial Court might take time to conclude the trial. The respondents opposed the petitioner's claims, stating there was evidence of the petitioner violating the provisions of the CGST Act. After hearing both sides, the Court referred to the principles of bail as laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that bail is to ensure the accused's appearance at trial and not as a form of punishment. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing personal liberty with societal interests and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Court concluded that the petitioner should be granted bail as the criminal liability was yet to be decided by the trial Court. The maximum sentence was five years, and the prosecution's case relied on official testimonies, minimizing the risk of witness tampering. Therefore, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to various conditions to ensure his appearance and compliance with the legal process. The Court allowed the petition and set conditions for the petitioner's release on bail.
|
