9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1264 - DSC - GSTSeeking grant of anticipatory Bail - availment and passing of inadmissible Input Tax Credit - using fake invoices or bills - offences punishable under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - There is prima facie material showing involvement of the applicant in commission of the offences alleged. The investigation is in progress. If released on bail the applicant may destroy the evidence likely to be collected and may influence the witnesses. Considering same circumstances in the background that the offence is economical affecting national economy and has to be dealt with sensitively, it is not just and proper at this stage to grant bail to the applicant. The bail application is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case and reasonable grounds for the offence. 2. Nature and gravity of the offence. 3. Possibility of the accused absconding or fleeing. 4. Likelihood of repetition of the offence. 5. Apprehension of threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses. 6. Apprehension of destruction of evidence. 7. Compliance with legal procedures for arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Prima Facie Case and Reasonable Grounds for the Offence: The applicant, a director of M/s. SPN Gold India Pvt. Ltd., is accused of availing and passing on inadmissible Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ?11,01,04,357/- using fake invoices or bills without the actual supply of goods. The court noted that the applicant's claim of genuine transactions was contradicted by the statements of Deepesh Gujar and his father, Hukumchand, who denied any involvement with Goldmine Bullions. The court found that the applicant's contention was not genuine and there was no material evidence of the delivery of goods. 2. Nature and Gravity of the Offence: The court emphasized that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses are grave and affect the national economy. The magnitude and scale of the alleged fraud, involving more than ?11 crores, were considered serious. 3. Possibility of the Accused Absconding or Fleeing: The court considered the possibility of the applicant absconding or fleeing from justice, although this was not explicitly detailed in the judgment. 4. Likelihood of Repetition of the Offence: The court did not explicitly address the likelihood of the applicant repeating the offence but implied concerns about the applicant's potential future conduct. 5. Apprehension of Threatening or Influencing Prosecution Witnesses: The court expressed apprehension that if released on bail, the applicant might influence the witnesses, which could impede the investigation. 6. Apprehension of Destruction of Evidence: The court noted that the investigation was still in progress and expressed concerns that the applicant might destroy evidence if released on bail. 7. Compliance with Legal Procedures for Arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act: The applicant argued that the arrest was not compliant with Section 69 of the CGST Act, as the reasons to believe were formed by the Inspector and not the Commissioner. The court found that the Inspector was duly authorized by the Commissioner, and there was ample material before the respondent to have reasons to believe for the arrest. The court held that the authorization was implicit and the procedure was followed correctly. Conclusion: The court found prima facie material showing the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences. Given the ongoing investigation, the serious nature of the economic offence, and the potential risks of evidence destruction and witness influence, the court deemed it inappropriate to grant bail at this stage. The bail application was therefore rejected. Order: The Bail Application No. 2665 of 2021 is rejected.
|
