2020 (2) TMI 1294 - DSC - GST

Grant of anticipatory bail - issuing fake invoices for the purpose of having input credit - Validity of summons issued - Statements given under coercion or not - bail sought on the ground that official of the Superintendent, Anti-evaion, Central Tax, Delhi, had gone at the premises of wife of the applicant to serve the summons u/s. 70 of CGST Act, 2017 whereas in fact, the applicant is living separately and had gone for some personal work at that time - HELD THAT - The statement given by the applicant to the department u/s 70 of GST Act and further evidence in the form of statement of accountant Vibhav Rai and the books of account, which have also been admitted by the applicant, are reflecting the existence of a deep rooted systematic conspiracy to cheat the exchequer. The ground raised on behalf of the applicant is that he was coerced to give the statement. However, it is to be seen that the applicant was given time to join investigation. He was given protection by the court and therefore, without commenting on the merits of the statement or contentions of the applicant that it was taken under coercion, I find that at this stage, it is highly improbable that a person who had court protection could be threatened orally and be made to give such inculpatory statement. This is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail - bail application dismissed.

Issues:
1. Service of summons to the wife of the applicant under duress
2. Applicant found in possession of fake GST invoices
3. Failure to appear before the department for inquiry
4. Grounds for seeking anticipatory bail
5. Admissions made by the applicant during investigation
6. Allegation of coercion during the investigation process
7. Existence of a systematic conspiracy to cheat the exchequer
8. Court's decision on granting anticipatory bail

Analysis:

1. The issue of the service of summons to the wife of the applicant under duress was raised in the case. The applicant claimed that the officials of the Superintendent, Anti-evasion, Central Tax, Delhi West, had served the summons to his wife forcibly and under duress. The wife informed the officials that the applicant was living separately and had gone for personal work, but she was threatened to take the summons. The court considered this issue in the context of the application for anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant was found in possession of fake GST invoices, leading to a complaint being registered against him by the department. The court noted that the applicant failed to appear before the department for the inquiry despite a summons being issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. This fact was crucial in the court's decision regarding the grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The grounds for seeking anticipatory bail included the argument that the summons sent to the applicant was illegal and unlawful as it lacked the Documentation Identification Number (DIN). The applicant expressed apprehension of being involved in a false case under pressure. The court considered these grounds along with the overall circumstances of the case.

4. During the investigation, the applicant made admissions regarding running multiple firms and issuing fake invoices for input credit. The court took into account the statements made by the applicant, the records seized, and the involvement of the applicant's accountant in maintaining the accounts of the fictitious firms.

5. The applicant's counsel contended that the applicant was coerced during the investigation process. The applicant alleged that he was threatened by the department to implicate his family members if he did not admit to the alleged account books. The court examined these contentions and the circumstances surrounding the applicant's statements.

6. The court analyzed the evidence, including the statements given by the applicant, the accountant, and the seized registers, to determine the existence of a systematic conspiracy to cheat the exchequer. The court considered the applicant's claim of coercion in giving the statement and evaluated the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

7. After considering all the submissions and evidence presented, the court concluded that the applicant's claim of being coerced to give the statement was not convincing. The court found that, given the protection provided by the court and the opportunity to join the investigation, it was improbable that the applicant was threatened orally. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, stating that it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail based on the facts and circumstances presented.

← Previous Next →