2021 (8) TMI 1170 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of bail - fake invoices - Section 132(1)(B)(C) (F) (I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section 5 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of allegation against the petitioner, his length of custody, filing of complaint, material contained therein, the offence being triable by Magistrate, the maximum punishment being 5 years and absence of criminal antecedents; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an accountant, filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint alleging offences under Section 132(1)(B)(C)(F)(I) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated as he was merely an accountant working on commission basis. He contended that his arrest violated statutory provisions and that the complaint filed against him was based on mutually exclusive provisions under the Act of 2017. The petitioner had been in custody since 19.12.2020, the investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and the list of witnesses contained only departmental witnesses. The petitioner had no criminal antecedents and the offence was triable by a Magistrate.

The respondent-Department alleged that the petitioner issued fake invoices amounting to around ?800 crores, causing a tax loss of approximately ?126 crores. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner had admitted to creating fake firms in his statement. Consequently, the respondent prayed for the rejection of the bail application. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court considered the nature of the allegation, the petitioner's custody duration, the filing of the complaint, its contents, the triability of the offence by a Magistrate, the maximum punishment of 5 years, and the absence of criminal antecedents. Without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the accused-petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the FIR, upon furnishing a personal bond of ?1,00,000/- and two sureties of ?50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner was also required to comply with all conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.