2023 (9) TMI 344 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - Evasion of GST - creating fake, forged and fabricated firms and received payments including GST in different accounts against the purchased goods from the complainant, but have not deposited GST with the GST department - HELD THAT - The present case is not just relating to the applicant having duped the complainant of a huge sum of money, it also involves allegations of issuing fake invoices and e-way bills for the purposes of GST evasion, which is an economic offence involving loss to the public exchequer. Such offences need to be viewed seriously as the same pose a threat to the economy of the country. Further, the present case involves offence under Section 467 of the IPC read with Section 471 of the IPC, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant needs to be confronted with various documents and statements of the witnesses, and the allegations levelled against him are serious, being in the nature of forgery and GST evasion by creating false invoices issued by non-existent entities, no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant are made out. The present bail application along with all pending applications is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and GST evasion.

Details:
1. The applicant, a CA, was accused of inducing the complainant to purchase goods from fake firms, resulting in a loss of Rs. 2,81,99,475.
2. The applicant allegedly received payments from the complainant but did not deposit GST with the department.
3. The complainant was arrested for GST evasion, and evidence suggested the applicant's involvement in financial transactions.
4. The applicant cooperated with the investigation but was accused of not fully cooperating.
5. The applicant filed multiple bail applications, withdrew one, and sought mediation to settle the matter.
6. The court noted the abuse of the legal process by the applicant in seeking bail repeatedly.
7. The applicant's intent to secure interim protection for settlement purposes was highlighted.
8. The court found evidence suggesting the applicant's involvement in running non-existent firms for GST evasion.
9. The severity of the offence, involving forgery and GST evasion, was emphasized.
10. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary to recover proceeds of crime and unravel the conspiracy.
11. Granting anticipatory bail was considered prejudicial to the ongoing investigation.
12. The court dismissed the bail application and vacated the interim protection granted to the applicant.
13. Observations made were clarified as solely for deciding the present application without expressing opinions on the case's merits.