9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1268 - HC - GSTGrant of regular bail - fraudulent availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Section 68 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered view that though the petitioner is in custody since 4.7.2018, but taking into account the fact that the petitioner is involved in a case involving fraud of ₹ 19.50 Crores and the alleged offence is an ecnomic offence which requires to be dealt with seriously and mere long custody would not be a ground for releasing him on bail. Similar matter was also before Hon ble Apex Court inY.S. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it was observed that bail should not be granted in such like cases of economic offences merely on the ground that the accused was in the jail for a period of one year. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail in arrest and production application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on allegations of fraud under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner, Jatinder Manro, was accused of being part of a fraud scheme involving fake sale invoices worth ?128 Crores without any actual supply of goods. It was alleged that he fraudulently availed and utilized input tax credit of over ?19.50 Crores based on these fake invoices. The address associated with the transactions was found to be a residential flat, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the business operations. The petitioner confessed to the fraudulent activities during the investigation, which led to his summoning under Section 70 of the Act. Despite arguments from the petitioner's counsel claiming false implication and no recovery to be made from the petitioner, the seriousness of the economic offense and the substantial amount involved were considered significant factors. The court deliberated on the gravity of economic offenses, emphasizing the need for a stringent approach in such cases. Referring to previous judgments, including Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, it was highlighted that economic offenses with deep-rooted conspiracies and substantial public fund losses should be treated seriously. The court cited the stance taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in similar cases, where bail was not granted solely based on the duration of custody, underscoring the severity of economic offenses on the country's financial health. Drawing parallels with precedent cases like The State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai, the court concluded that considering the nature and magnitude of the offense, there was no merit in granting bail to the petitioner, ultimately dismissing the petition. In conclusion, the judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana denied the petitioner's plea for regular bail in a case involving allegations of a significant economic offense under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The decision was based on the substantial amount of fraud, the seriousness of economic offenses, and the precedence set by previous judgments emphasizing the gravity of such crimes on the nation's financial integrity.
|
