9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 wherein this Court had exercised discretion in favour of the present applicant in the F.I.R. which was pertaining to similar offence registered against the applicant. However, in the said case, the applicant was arrested on 08.10.2024 and had undergone imprisonment for a period of three months. The said F.I.R. was registered on 07.10.2024 and investigation in the said case was virtually over. In the present case, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 27.11.2024. The investigation of the present offence is still in progress. Moreover, after registration of the F.I.R., wherein the applicant has been considered for grant of bail by this Court, several other offence of similar nature have been registered against him. This Court is not inclined to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted the present applicant is alleged to have wrongfully availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.8,50,788/-. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence alleged against the present applicant under the provisions of GST is imprisonment for 1 year. The applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 20.12.2024 and has also already undergone the imprisonment for almost 1.5 months. 2.3 Learned Advocate has further submitted that it is alleged against the present applicant that he had passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit, and therefore, the offence alleged against the present applicant would be punishable under Section 122 of the GST Act. The applicant has never been asked to pay the dues, and therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bulal Jethalal Hirani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-HC 247325. 5. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751. 6. Prakash Ramchandra Barot & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2780 of 2011. 7. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Buruau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. 8. Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51. 9. P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791. 10. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 11. Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2550. 12. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices, which were purchased from it were also fake and despite the said knowledge, the applicant herein had availed the benefit of Input Tax Credit on the basis of those invoices. The aspect of repayment of the amount of Input Tax Credit availed wrongfully would not absorb the applicant of criminal liability. 4.3 Learned AAG further submits that the amount of Input Tax Credit, which had been deposited in the accounts of the accused persons had been transferred to a different accounts, which was withdrawn from the said accounts and was sent to 10 different persons via Ganesh Aangdiya of Bhavnagar. Thus, there is a reason to believe that the money in question must have been laundered out of India. 4.4 Learned AAG further submits that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
