2024 (2) TMI 1125 - HC - GST

Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - availing and utilizing fraudulent ITC on the basis of the fake tax invoice, without receiving the goods or services or both - petitioner has joined in the investigation and is neither required for further investigation nor for any custodial interrogation - HELD THAT - Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner had joined the investigation consequent to the orders dated 21.04.2022 and 14.12.2022 passed by this Court, interim bail granted vide orders dated 21.04.2022 and 14.12.2022 is hereby confirmed, subject to conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Further the petitioner is directed to join investigation as and when required in future by way of written notice for such purpose to be served by Investigating Officer of this case upon the petitioner; he will not tamper with the evidence nor will influence the witnesses and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are anticipatory bail sought under Section 438 Cr.P.C in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and liability related to Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Anticipatory Bail and GST Liability:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving FIR dated 30.12.2020 with various sections of the IPC. The petitioner had joined the investigation and filed an appeal regarding GST liability. The petitioner assured compliance with the law concerning GST liability. The complainant emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to fulfill the GST liability. The petitioner reiterated readiness to abide by the liability assessed by the competent authority.

Court Orders and Proceedings:
During the hearing, it was noted that the GST ID was mistakenly created in the wrong name initially but later corrected. The petitioner was willing to cooperate in the investigation. The court ordered the petitioner to join the investigation and granted interim bail if arrested. Subsequently, a status report was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police regarding a show cause notice for a substantial amount. The petitioner responded to the notice and disputed the liability based on a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance. The complainant argued that the petitioner, responsible for the firm's affairs, should be liable for the actions during the relevant period.

Confirmation of Interim Bail:
The State counsel confirmed that the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation and was not needed for further interrogation. Considering this, the interim bail granted earlier was confirmed with specific conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petitioner was directed to continue cooperating in the investigation upon receiving written notices, maintain evidence integrity, refrain from influencing witnesses, and seek court permission before leaving the country.

Conclusion:
The petition seeking anticipatory bail was allowed, and the interim bail was confirmed with specified conditions. The judgment clarified that the decision did not express any opinion on the case's merits. The petitioner was directed to comply with the conditions set forth by the Court for the continuation of the bail.