9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 836 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of regular bail - registration on the basis of fake and forged documents - irregular availment and utilization of ITC - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the facts and circumstances moreso, the fact that the Petitioner has been in custody since 27.11.2020 and there are as many as 23 witnesses, out of which none have been examined and the trial is likely to take time and the amount of GST said to have been evaded has already been recovered from Susheel Garg and Amit Garg and no amount of input tax credit has been credited in the account of the present petitioner and also since the petitioner was not named in the FIR and also since there are several debatable issues/arguments in the present case which have been elaborated hereinabove, and although the same would be finally adjudicated upon in the trial, this Court considers it fit to allow the present petition and grant regular bail to the petitioner. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other cases.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of GST evasion using fake and forged documents. 3. Implication of the petitioner based on disclosure statements. 4. Examination of incriminating material against the petitioner. 5. Comparison with previous judgments and similar cases. 6. Evaluation of the petitioner's role and custody duration. 7. Applicability of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. 8. Consideration of multiple FIRs and previous bail grants. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No.42 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, and 120-B IPC. The bail application was evaluated based on the petitioner's involvement, custody duration, and the amount of GST evaded. 2. Allegations of GST Evasion Using Fake and Forged Documents: The FIR was registered on the complaint of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat, alleging that Rakesh Kumar registered a firm, M/s Saksham Enterprises, using fake documents to evade ?1,12,65,909/- in GST by generating fake invoices and E-way bills. 3. Implication of the Petitioner Based on Disclosure Statements: The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statements of Susheel Garg, Amit Garg, and Rajesh Chopra under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that these statements were hearsay and lacked direct evidence linking him to the alleged offenses. 4. Examination of Incriminating Material Against the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, had no direct involvement in the firm or the transactions, and no GST input tax credit was credited to his account. The only recovery from the petitioner was ?7,000/-, which did not link him to the alleged crime. 5. Comparison with Previous Judgments and Similar Cases: The petitioner relied on judgments in "Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab" and "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana," where bail was granted despite implications based on disclosure statements. These cases highlighted that mere implication should not prevent bail if no direct evidence exists. 6. Evaluation of the Petitioner's Role and Custody Duration: The petitioner had been in custody since 27.11.2020, with the challan already presented and no further recovery required from him. The court considered the petitioner's role, the lack of direct evidence, and the fact that the GST amount was recovered from others. 7. Applicability of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017: The court noted that under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, offenses involving tax evasion over ?5 crores are non-bailable, but in this case, the evasion was less than ?5 crores, making the offense bailable. The primary allegations related to GST evasion should be governed by the 2017 Act. 8. Consideration of Multiple FIRs and Previous Bail Grants: The petitioner faced multiple FIRs with similar allegations but had been granted bail in several cases. The court considered the petitioner's arguments that he was implicated based on similar evidence without direct linkage to the offenses. Judgment Summary: The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, considering the lack of direct evidence, the recovery of the GST amount from others, and the petitioner's prolonged custody. The court emphasized that the observations made were for bail adjudication purposes and should not influence the trial's merits. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, ensuring he was not required in any other cases.
|
