Considering the fact that the custody of the petitioner is less than 03 months, this court do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Bail —-The petitioner prayed for regular bail for offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to bring the offence under Clause (i) of Section 132(i), different amount of ITC were clubbed so as to bring the figure above Rs. 500 lacs to attract maximum punishment and therefore, no proper procedure has been followed. There is no fake or bogus invoices or no false claim have been set up by the petitioner as he has filed all the documents relating to the transactions from time to time with the respondent – authorities. The counsel for the respondent opposed the bail on the ground that a complaint has already been filed against the petitioner and on investigation it was found that the petitioner firm has received invoices without actual supply of goods from fake/bogus firms. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of such or similar nature and he is in custody since 26.12.2020 and as the complaint has been filed, it will take long time in conclusion of the trial. The court observed that main allegations against the petitioner are regarding availment of fake ITC for approximately Rs. 18 crores and the custody of the petitioner is less than 03 months.
.Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petition by rejecting the regular bail, at this stage.
Considering the fact that the custody of the petitioner is less than 03 months, this court do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
Section 132 of the CGST Act— Bail —-The petitioner prayed for regular bail for offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in order to bring the offence under Clause (i) of Section 132(i), different amount of ITC were clubbed so as to bring the figure above Rs. 500 lacs to attract maximum punishment and therefore, no proper procedure has been followed. There is no fake or bogus invoices or no false claim have been set up by the petitioner as he has filed all the documents relating to the transactions from time to time with the respondent – authorities. The counsel for the respondent opposed the bail on the ground that a complaint has already been filed against the petitioner and on investigation it was found that the petitioner firm has received invoices without actual supply of goods from fake/bogus firms. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of such or similar nature and he is in custody since 26.12.2020 and as the complaint has been filed, it will take long time in conclusion of the trial. The court observed that main allegations against the petitioner are regarding availment of fake ITC for approximately Rs. 18 crores and the custody of the petitioner is less than 03 months.
.Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petition by rejecting the regular bail, at this stage.