2022 (12) TMI 191 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - fraudulent availment of ITC without receipt of goods in contravention of provision Section 16 of CGST Act - issuance of invoices without supplying of goods - HELD THAT - As the accused has been summoned by the department therefore there is apprehension to accused of arrest and in view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in SATISH KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 1990 (9) TMI 363 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Delhi courts has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As per submissions of Ld. Counsel for department the accused has joined investigation during interim protection and has handed over documents, main accused. Vimal Alawadhi has already been granted bail on 15.10.2022 and he has already deposited the amount of 10% as per order dated 15.10.2022 as informed by Ld. Counsel for department. There is nothing on record to show that present applicant has mis-used the interim protection granted by Court on 15.11.2022 or has not cooperated in the investigation, accordingly, in these facts and circumstance, the present applicant/accused Raman Kumar is admitted to anticipatory bail and in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail upon filing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties bond in the like amount and subject to conditions imposed. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application filed by the accused.
2. Allegations of tax evasion and misuse of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
3. Arguments for and against granting anticipatory bail.
4. Compliance with investigation and previous bail orders.
5. Jurisdiction of the court.
6. Conditions imposed for granting anticipatory bail.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The accused filed a bail application claiming innocence and alleging false implication. The defense argued that the accused had complied with the investigation, supplied documents, and had no intention to abscond. Reference was made to the bail granted to the main accused in the case. The defense sought anticipatory bail and assured compliance with any court-imposed conditions.

2. The department opposed the bail application, alleging that the accused was involved in managing financial transactions and misusing ITC without actual receipt of goods. The case involved suspicious transactions and a significant amount of ITC being availed and utilized. The department expressed concerns about possible tampering with evidence if the accused was not arrested.

3. The defense cited various legal judgments in support of the bail application, emphasizing the accused's cooperation with the investigation and lack of misuse of interim protection. The department argued against granting bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for tampering with evidence.

4. The court noted that the accused had joined the investigation and complied with previous orders. It was mentioned that the main accused had already been granted bail and had deposited the required amount. The court found no evidence of misuse of interim protection and granted anticipatory bail to the accused, subject to specified conditions.

5. The court addressed the jurisdiction issue, citing a relevant judgment to establish that Delhi courts had jurisdiction over the matter. This clarification was crucial in determining the court's authority to adjudicate on the case.

6. In granting anticipatory bail, the court imposed conditions on the accused, including cooperating with the investigation, not leaving the country without court permission, refraining from tampering with evidence, and avoiding any inducement or threats to individuals related to the case. The court disposed of the anticipatory bail application and directed the accused to file a personal bond with sureties as specified.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented and the court's decision regarding the bail application and related matters.