Article Section | |||||||||||
Home Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST CA Bimal Jain Experts This |
|||||||||||
Bail may be conditionally granted in cases of fraudulent ITC availment through fake invoices |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Discuss this article |
|||||||||||
Bail may be conditionally granted in cases of fraudulent ITC availment through fake invoices |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in PRADIP KUMAR JAIN, DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA - 2024 (6) TMI 158 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, allowed bail to the Assessee, considering nature of offense, punishment, lack of evidence regarding creation of fake firms, and period of jail stay, the Assessee made out case for bail. The bail was granted subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearing before trial court. Facts: Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain was the proprietor of M/s. Aadi Enterprises and five other non-existent firms, which were operated by him. Mr. Pradip Kumar Jain (“the Petitioner”), was the proprietor of M/s. Arav Enterprises and M/s. N.P. Industries. The Petitioner conducted genuine business during the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain had availed and passed on without actual supply of goods, based on fake tax invoices issued and received. Consequently, both Mr. Devendra Kumar Jain and the Petitioner had committed offenses under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and Section 132(1)(i) of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”), respectively. Further, Mr. Devender Kumar Jain had applied for cancellation of GST registration on December 01, 2020 for cancellation of 5 firms those were cancelled which shows that there was no any tax liability on him at that very time. The Petitioner contended that no assessment of liability had been made by the authorities, and no notice had been issued before their arrest. Aside from the Petitioner’s statement, there was no other material evidence showing that they had availed ITC fraudulently and they had been in jail since February 28, 2024. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (“DGGI”) contended that the Petitioner was involved in evading ITC by creating fake firms and there were no records of the device used to create the non-existent firms. They feared that if granted bail, the Petitioner might resume similar activities and misuse bail privileges. Hence, aggrieved by the circumstances, the Petitioner filed writ petition requested to release the Petitioner on the bail during the pendency of case. Issue: Whether bail can be granted in the case of issuing fake invoices in order to avail ITC? Held: The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in PRADIP KUMAR JAIN, DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA - 2024 (6) TMI 158 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:
Breach of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be liberty to move bail cancellation application before the court. Our Comment: Section 132 of the CGST Act discusses “Punishment for certain offences”. Further, Section 132(1) of the CGST Act states that whoever commits, or causes to commit and retain the benefits arising out of, any of the offences like:
shall be punishable in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of ITC wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds Rs. 500, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with a fine. In the Pari Materia case of GAURAV KAKKAR S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL KAKKAR VERSUS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, JAIPUR ZONAL UNIT - 2023 (2) TMI 978 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of VINAY KANT AMETA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA - 2022 (7) TMI 1106 - SC ORDER, wherein, the accused was directed to deposit INR 200 crores as a condition for grant of bail. Hence, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail and stipulated the petitioner must execute a personal bond for INR 2,00,000/- and provide two sureties of INR 1,00,000/- each. These conditions were set to ensure the petitioner’s appearance before the court for every hearing and whenever called upon to do so until the conclusion of the trial. (Author can be reached at [email protected])
By: CA Bimal Jain - October 5, 2024
|
|||||||||||
Discuss this article |
|||||||||||