9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 996 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of Bail - bogus transactions fake invoices - receipt of purchase invoices in the name of fake firms without physical receipt of goods and issuing sale invoices without onward physical movement of the goods - requirement of detailed and extensive searches of business premises - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Apex Court in case of NIRANJAN SINGH VERSUS PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE 1980 (3) TMI 258 - SUPREME COURT has observed which has also been reiterated in case of SHRI P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2019 (10) TMI 879 - SUPREME COURT that at the stage of consideration of the matter for granting bail, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided. In the given case, the complaint has been lodged against the Petitioner and others for commission of the aforesaid offences under section 132(1)(b)(c) and (1) of the OGST Act. The maximum punishment prescribed thereunder is the imprisonment for a term of five years and with fine in case the amount of tax evaded or the ITC wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds ₹ 500.00 lakh. The investigation having commenced, it appears that extensive searches of business premises and the house of the Petitioner and other connected premises have already been conducted and a large number of documents have also been seized pursuant to the said search. All these are in custody of the complainant to which the Petitioner is having no more the access. In the circumstances of the case on hand, no other materials are placed to support that further detention of the Petitioner still stands as of necessity for the case. In the meantime, about five months have passed since the detention of the Petitioner in custody and thus those stages of the investigation here appear to be over when it can be said that the Petitioner being enlarged on bail may stand on the way of proper investigation in collecting all the materials triggering derailment of investigation process with the possibility of the Petitioner influencing the witnesses and absconding on which scores there too stand no material particulars. It is directed that the Petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 35,00,000/- with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court in seisin of the case with the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Allegations of economic offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c) and (1) of the OGST Act, 2017. 3. Prosecution's opposition to bail. 4. Considerations for granting bail. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.: The Petitioner sought release on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., having been in custody in connection with offences under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (OGST Act). The Petitioner was accused of managing fake purchase invoices and issuing sale invoices without actual movement of goods, thereby availing and passing on bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC). 2. Allegations of Economic Offences under Section 132(1)(b)(c) and (1) of the OGST Act, 2017: The prosecution alleged that the Petitioner, as the proprietor of M/s. S.R. Enterprises, colluded with others to show receipt of purchase invoices from fake firms without physical receipt of goods and issued sale invoices without actual movement of goods. This resulted in wrongful availing and passing of bogus ITC, defrauding the State exchequer. The Petitioner was also accused of operating dummy firms and conducting transactions without proper invoices or tax payments, involving sums of ?10.75 crores and ?6.25 crores. 3. Prosecution's Opposition to Bail: The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the Petitioner had previously been denied bail and that there were no changes in circumstances to justify reconsideration. They contended that the Petitioner played a significant role in defrauding the State Exchequer by creating and operating fictitious business entities, generating fake documents, and opening bank accounts in non-existent entities' names. The prosecution feared that the Petitioner might tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and disrupt the investigation process if released on bail. 4. Considerations for Granting Bail: The Court considered several factors, including the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, evidence presented, and the possibility of the Petitioner tampering with witnesses or absconding. The Court referenced various precedents, emphasizing that detailed examination of evidence should be avoided at the bail stage and that each case should be judged on its own merits. The Court noted that the maximum punishment under the OGST Act for the alleged offences is five years imprisonment and a fine. The investigation had already led to extensive searches and seizure of documents, which were in the complainant's custody, reducing the risk of evidence tampering. The Petitioner had been in custody for about five months, and the Court found no substantial material suggesting that further detention was necessary for the investigation. The Court also considered the Petitioner's permanent residence and the improbability of him fleeing from justice. Judgment: The Court decided to grant bail to the Petitioner, directing that he be released on furnishing a bail bond of ?35,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to conditions: (i) The Petitioner shall not induce, threaten, or promise prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence. (ii) The Petitioner shall not engage in similar activities. (iii) The Petitioner shall surrender his passport and not leave India without prior Court permission. (iv) The Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Authority as required. The BLAPL was disposed of accordingly, with provisions for urgent certified copies as per rules.
|
