9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 166 - HC - GSTGrant of regular Bail - allegation of falsely showing bogus billing etc., adjusted the amount without any actual transportation of the goods or sale of goods etc. - wrongly claimed the relief of more than ₹ 80 crore - complaint u/s 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 r.w.s. 10 of the IGST Act - HELD THAT - In State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai , 2017 (4) TMI 1410 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused charged with economic offence of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin of crime, is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Keeping in view the serious nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused has been charged with economic offence of huge magnitude, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. Petition dismissed.
Issues: Grant of regular bail in a complaint case under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 10 of the IGST Act.
Analysis: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in a complaint case related to tax offenses under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner, along with co-accused, is accused of engaging in fraudulent activities involving bogus billing and false transactions amounting to over ?80 crore without actual goods transactions or sales. The case is in its preliminary stage, and the petitioner is considered the main accused in this economic offense. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, especially being the main accused in a significant economic offense. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that accused individuals involved in economic offenses of substantial magnitude, particularly those considered the mastermind behind the crimes, are not typically granted bail. Considering the gravity of the offense and the petitioner's alleged involvement in a substantial economic offense, the court concluded that this was not a suitable case for granting regular bail. In light of the above analysis and the nature of the offense, the court dismissed the petitioner's request for regular bail. The decision was based on the severity of the allegations, the economic magnitude of the offense, and the petitioner's central role in the fraudulent activities, emphasizing the denial of bail in cases involving significant economic crimes.
|
