9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the department, neither any invoice or bill has been issued by the applicant/accused nor any Input Tax Credit was availed by the applicant/accused himself or by any firm in which he is a proprietor or partner. The entire case put forth by the department against the applicant/accused is that he is the person who conspired with co-accused persons for wrongful availement of refund of IGST. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence collected so far against the applicant/accused is the statement of the applicant/accused recorded u/s 70 of CGST Act which has already been retracted by the applicant/accused when he was produced before the Court after his arrest. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, period of custody already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven as per the case put forth by the department only the offence u/s 132(1)(1) CGST Act is made out which is bailable offence. Ld. counsel submits that even in the reply to the bail application it is not alleged by the department that the applicant/accused issued any such invoice or he withdrew any IGST refund as alleged. Ld. counsel submits that the accused has been in JC in this case for about 01 month and his custodial interrogation is no more required. Ld. counsel submits that accused is ready to join the investigation with the IO and the accused may be admitted to bail. In the reply to the bail application moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Ramesh Wadhera, it is alleged by the department that the statement of the applicant/accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on and the applicant/accused may not be admitted to bail. I have heard the respective submissions made by Ld. counsel for the applicant/accused Ramesh Wadhera as well as the submissions made by Ld Sr. Standing Counsel. The applicant/accused has been arrested on the allegations of alleged commission of offence u/s 132(1)(b) & 132(1)(c) of CGST Act. Section 132(1)(b) provides that whoever issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services in violation of the provisions of the Act leading to wrongful availement or utilisation of Input Tax Credit or refund of tax shall be punished. Further, section 132(I)(c) provides that whoever avails Input Tax Credit by using such invoices or bills referred to in clause (b) shall be punishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply to the bail application of co-accused Pankaj Bhatia, the department has categorically stated that accused Pankaj Bhatia is the main mastermind of the racket of IGST refund and played an active role in defrauding the exchequer. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, period of custody already undergone by the applicant/accused and the nature of evidence available against the applicant/accused, I am of the opinion that applicant/accused Ramesh Wadhera is entitled to bail in this case at this stage. Hence, applicant/accused Ramesh Wadhera is hereby admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lac with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he shall join the investigation with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
