9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 962 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of regular bail - ITC passed on the strength of invoices issued through the fake firms - evasion of GST by fraudulent means for which sustainable evidences have already been gathered - offences punishable u/s. 132(1) (b), (c) and (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The allegations of the complainant i.e. CGST Commissioner against the applicant-accused are very serious in nature. As per the complaint, GST evasion of approximately 90 Crores has been committed by the applicant-accused on ITC passed on the strength of invoices issued through fake firms. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and serious allegations of the complainant against the applicant-accused, this Court finds no ground to allow the instant application - instant bail application of the applicant-accused is hereby dismissed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail in a complaint under CGST Act, 2017 for offenses u/s. 132(1)(b), (c), and (l). Analysis: 1. The complaint involves the applicant-accused being charged with offenses under the CGST Act, 2017, specifically sections 132(1)(b), (c), and (l). The complaint alleges that the accused was involved in registering fake firms and passing on fake ITC amounting to crores of rupees through these firms. The accused admitted to these activities during investigations. 2. The investigation revealed that the accused was the mastermind behind registering and operating multiple fake firms. The accused admitted to passing ITC through various fake firms, and it was found that approximately 30 crores of ITC was passed on through certain specific entities. The complaint details the extensive network of fake firms created by the accused for fraudulent activities. 3. The complaint further alleges that the accused was involved in widespread GST evasion amounting to around 90 crores through the issuance of invoices from fake firms. The complainant provided a detailed list of firms involved in the evasion, along with the corresponding amounts of ITC passed on through these firms. 4. The arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused focused on the lack of evidence linking the accused to the registration of fake firms or opening fake bank accounts. The defense also highlighted that the trial might be prolonged, no recovery was made from the accused, and the accused did not misuse interim bail previously granted. 5. On the other hand, the Senior SPP argued against granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense committed by the accused, leading to substantial GST evasion. The SPP contended that the accused had caused an evasion of approximately 90 crores through fake firms and, therefore, the bail application should be dismissed. 6. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the Court found no grounds to grant bail to the applicant-accused. The Court noted the extensive GST evasion detailed in the complaint and dismissed the bail application without commenting on the case's merits. This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key issues, arguments presented, findings, and the ultimate decision of the Court regarding the grant of bail in a complaint involving significant offenses under the CGST Act, 2017.
|
