The enlargement of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, is likely to hamper the investigation and tamper evidence which may amount to compromising with the entire investigation of the case. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail —-- The petitioner sought bail in connection with GST Case under Section 132 of the Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had managed/collected the fake invoices and facilitated commission of the offence by the co-accused Amit Kumar. The petitioner is a Tax Consultant and he has no individual role in the commission of the offence. According to him, the petitioner has done his duty as a Tax Consultant only on the basis of the materials given to him. The accused petitioner has been in custody for a month. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner had collected from the concerned firms/individuals fake invoices, E-way bills, etc and he was in complete league and connivance with the coaccused Amit Kumar in commission of the alleged offence. The court observed that a huge economic offence and tax evasion of Rs. 28,97,85,917/-, is alleged and therefore, a thorough and detail investigation is essential. The enlargement of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, is likely to hamper the investigation and tamper evidence.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the prayer for bail.
The enlargement of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, is likely to hamper the investigation and tamper evidence which may amount to compromising with the entire investigation of the case. Accordingly the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail —-- The petitioner sought bail in connection with GST Case under Section 132 of the Act, 2017. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had managed/collected the fake invoices and facilitated commission of the offence by the co-accused Amit Kumar. The petitioner is a Tax Consultant and he has no individual role in the commission of the offence. According to him, the petitioner has done his duty as a Tax Consultant only on the basis of the materials given to him. The accused petitioner has been in custody for a month. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner had collected from the concerned firms/individuals fake invoices, E-way bills, etc and he was in complete league and connivance with the coaccused Amit Kumar in commission of the alleged offence. The court observed that a huge economic offence and tax evasion of Rs. 28,97,85,917/-, is alleged and therefore, a thorough and detail investigation is essential. The enlargement of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, is likely to hamper the investigation and tamper evidence.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the prayer for bail.