2024 (4) TMI 294 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular bail - claiming of ineligible tax credit - applicability of Section 132 (1)(c) of the Gujarat Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that present applicant has availed ineligible input tax credit of Rs. 07.45 Crores on the basis of purchases made from six registered entities, which according to the revenue are found to be non-existing. This Court has also considered punishment prescribed for the offence in question and also considered the fact that the applicant is in custody since 02.02.2024. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions imposed - the present application is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Regular bail application u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with alleged GST Act offences.

Summary:
The applicant, a proprietor of a manufacturing and trading business, sought regular bail in connection with an allegation under Section 132(1)(c) of the GST Act. The prosecution claimed that the applicant availed ineligible input tax credit based on purchases from entities found to be non-existing. The applicant argued that the allegations were vague and lacked evidence linking him to the offence. The Court considered the severity of the offence, the applicant's custody since the arrest, and relevant legal precedents, including the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation. Ultimately, the Court granted the bail application, ordering the applicant's release on certain conditions, including executing a personal bond, surrendering passport, marking monthly presence before the State Tax Officer, and not leaving the state without permission.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the bail application, emphasizing the need for the applicant to comply with the specified conditions and warning of consequences for any breach. The bail bond was to be executed before the lower Court, which had the authority to modify conditions as per legal requirements. Additionally, the Court directed that its preliminary observations should not influence the trial Court during the trial proceedings.