2023 (3) TMI 1059 - DSC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - It is stated that entire case is based on documents and accused has already joined the investigation earlier when summons were issued. - newly registered GSTINs indulged in issuing invoices without actual supply of goods - case of accused is that the main accused in this case namely Rajiv Chawla and his wife Shipra Chawla have already been granted bail and accused/ applicant is no more required in the investigation - HELD THAT - Having gone through the record while there is no denial to the fact that accused/applicant is in judicial custody, however as per Senior Standing Counsel appearing for DGGI investigation in the matter is still going on as stated in para 5 of the reply of the Department. In such situation taking into consideration the serious nature of the offence and the fact that investigation of the Department is still going on, no case of the accused/applicant is at parity with other accused Rajiv Chawla who has already been granted bail on 17.02.2023. Moreover perusal of order dated 17.02.2023 of granting bail to accused Rajiv Chawla would show that in that case this court had considered the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of CGST Act as there were multiple actions initiated by different agencies under the CGST. Such is not the position in this case. Bail application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The accused applied for regular bail, claiming clean antecedents and being the sole bread earner. The Department of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) conducted searches at the office and residence of the accused, seizing documents. The accused is alleged to be an employee of a firm run by the main accused, acting on instructions to earn commission. The case is document-based, and the accused had cooperated with the investigation earlier.

In response, DGGI stated that searches were conducted based on intelligence regarding GST fraud. The accused admitted to issuing invoices without actual supply of goods. The accused, a partner in a trading company, admitted to working under the main accused and not supplying goods to another firm. The evasion amount is reported to be Rs. 47 crores, with ongoing investigations potentially increasing the amount.

The defense argued that the main accused had already been granted bail, suggesting the accused's non-essential role in the investigation. However, the Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI opposed, stating that the investigations concerning the accused were still ongoing and not at par with the main accused's case. The court, considering the seriousness of the offense and ongoing investigations, denied bail, noting the absence of multiple actions under the CGST Act as in the main accused's case, where bail was granted based on Section 6(2)(b) provisions.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the bail application, citing the ongoing investigations and the lack of parity with the main accused's case, where bail was granted based on different circumstances.