9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without onward physical movement of the goods and thereby has wrongfully availed and passed on bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the strength of those fake invoices in defrauding the State exchequer. It is also said that there was supply of the goods purchased out of accounts from clandestine sources without obtaining invoices and without payment of tax besides creation and operation of dummy firms in the name and style of M/s Kuladia Traders and others in collusion with one Sri Sandip Mohanty and others to the tune of Rs. 10.75 and Rs. 6.25 crores and thus it is said that there has been the availment and passing of bogus ITC in the name of the said firms as alleged. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has made all genuine sale and purchase of goods using genuine GSTN and has paid the GST. It was thus submitted that the Petitioner is no way involvement in commission of offences as alleged and he has been arrested in the case on frivolous ground without determining the tax liability and by erroneous calculation of the ITC as alleged when it is said that accused Sandip Ku. Mohanty is the main accused and this Petitioner is said to have been in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the move. He submitted that the prayer for grant of bail to the Petitioner having earlier been rejected in BLAPL No. 5883 of 2021, there is no change in the circumstances for reconsideration of the said prayer. According to him, the Petitioner being involved in commission of economic offence and on the face of the materials collected that the Petitioner had all the role in defrauding the State Exchequer to the tune of huge sum by passing over bogus ITC and receiving the ITC simply by managing to have the transactions reflected in the papers without physical movement of the goods or services and in the process has created numerous fake documents such as invoices, bills etc. besides having the hand in creating and operating the fake Firms and opening Bank accounts in the name of those entities which have no existence in reality in the commercial field; merely basing upon the factum of detention of the Petitioner in custody for about five months, this subsequent move for release of the Petitioner on bail has to fail. He submitted that the materials would show that the Petitioner was involved in the matter with the intention to defraud the State Exchequer by way of creation and op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80). There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion 17 of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner". 9. In "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan and another"; (2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon'ble Apex Court has said as under:- "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider 18 among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused........". 10. In the given case, the complaint has been lodged against the Petitioner and others for commission of the aforesaid offences under section 132(1)(b)(c) and (1) of the OGST Act. The maximum punishment prescribed thereunder is the imprisonment for a term of five years and with fine in case the amount of tax evaded or the ITC wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds Rs. 500.00 lakh. The investigation having commenced, it appears that extensive searches of business premises and the house of the Petitioner and other connected premises have already been conducted and a large number of documents have also been seized pursuant to the said search. All these are in custody of the complainant to which the Petitioner is having no more the access. The prosecution case is mainly based upon the documents in respect of the so-called clandestine business activities. The complaint having already been filed, the Petitioner has been in custody since 28.6.2021. The Petitioner is a permanent resident under jurisdiction of Khandagiri Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
