9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 353 - HC - GSTAnticipatory bail - GST fraud - custodial investigation is required or not - Validity of search (raid) under GST - it is contended that, since the petitioner was not present and his wife and son were present, the raid, which was conducted in the absence of the petitioner, was not in accordance with law. - a Panchnama was prepared on completion of investigation, however, no copy was given either to petitioner's wife or his son. - HELD THAT - After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without making any comment on the merits of the case, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons. Accordingly, both the present petitions are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application for preponing the date of main cases. 2. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in two complaint cases under CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed applications to preponing the date of the main cases fixed for 27.08.2021. The court allowed the applications for preponing the main cases to be taken up on the same day due to common facts in the petitions. 2. The prayer in the petitions was for anticipatory bail to the petitioner in two complaint cases under the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued that the search conducted at the petitioner's house was not in accordance with the law as the petitioner was absent during the raid. It was further argued that the petitioner was being falsely implicated due to the influence of a third party. The petitioner was willing to cooperate in the investigation and provide all necessary documents. However, the respondent submitted that the petitioner was involved in a significant GST fraud scheme amounting to crores of rupees. The respondent argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the petitioner's modus operandi and involvement of other individuals. The court, without commenting on the case's merits, dismissed the petitions, stating that custodial interrogation was required to investigate the petitioner's actions and involvement in the fraud scheme.
|
