2023 (9) TMI 559 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - evasion of GST - non-existent, bogus and non-operational firms - creation of bogus firms to claim fraudulent ITC and refunds without conducting any actual business - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the custody period, on the basis of parity of petitioner vis-a-vis coaccused so far as grant of bail is concerned and though the investigation is complete conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned. The petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of seeking regular bail in a case related to economic offenses under sections 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(c)(e)(f) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Details of the Judgment:

Petitioner's Contentions:
The petitioner sought bail, claiming no connection with non-existent firms involved in fraudulent activities. It was argued that the disclosure statement by a co-accused was made under duress and fear, hence inadmissible. The petitioner denied receiving any money from CGST and contended that he was not involved in any fraudulent activities. Previous bail granted to other accused was cited in support.

State's Contentions:
The state opposed bail, alleging the petitioner's involvement in creating non-existent firms for fraudulent activities. It was claimed that the petitioner was the mastermind behind a scheme to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit refund. Various instances of fraudulent activities and manipulation by the petitioner were presented as evidence against granting bail.

Judicial Decision:
The court considered the arguments from both sides and noted that the investigation was complete, a complaint had been filed, and co-accused had already been granted bail. The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specific conditions such as furnishing bail bonds, surrendering passport, appearing before the trial court, and other requirements. The court emphasized that the decision to grant bail was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not imply a final judgment on the case's merits.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was granted bail based on the completion of the investigation, the custody period, and the parity with co-accused individuals. The court allowed the petition, making pending applications irrelevant in light of the main case's decision.