Facts of the case constitute offence of cheating and, therefore, application deserves no consideration. Application rejected.
Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017 – Bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail. The complainant alleged that though he had delivered the goods to the petitioner but he did not receive the payment, as such he issued a notice to the petitioner but the petitioner denied receipt of goods. After which, the crime in question was registered on 8th May, 2021 for cheating. The petitioner counsel submitted that they had neither claimed ITC nor there is any material on record that suggest that goods have been delivered to him, therefore, the Applicant has been implicated in the false case. The court observed that the co-accused was denied pre-arrest bail by this Court and even by the Apex Court. During the course of investigation, the petitioner had produced two delivery challans, admitting delivery of goods. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve these two challans. The GST Authority vide communication dated 13th August, 2021, opined that petitioner has not availed ITC against these Invoices The court observed that the evidence collected in the course of investigation, shows Complainant delivered the goods and after delivery, he denied Complainant’s claim and refused to pay him. Facts of the case constitute offence of cheating.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the application.
Facts of the case constitute offence of cheating and, therefore, application deserves no consideration. Application rejected.
Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017 – Bail - The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail. The complainant alleged that though he had delivered the goods to the petitioner but he did not receive the payment, as such he issued a notice to the petitioner but the petitioner denied receipt of goods. After which, the crime in question was registered on 8th May, 2021 for cheating. The petitioner counsel submitted that they had neither claimed ITC nor there is any material on record that suggest that goods have been delivered to him, therefore, the Applicant has been implicated in the false case. The court observed that the co-accused was denied pre-arrest bail by this Court and even by the Apex Court. During the course of investigation, the petitioner had produced two delivery challans, admitting delivery of goods. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve these two challans. The GST Authority vide communication dated 13th August, 2021, opined that petitioner has not availed ITC against these Invoices The court observed that the evidence collected in the course of investigation, shows Complainant delivered the goods and after delivery, he denied Complainant’s claim and refused to pay him. Facts of the case constitute offence of cheating.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the application.