Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the quantum of alleged tax evasion and also considering the pandemic situation, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity and grant bail to the petitioner.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Bail –– The petitioner prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2021 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged that the petitioner has availed ITC based on fake invoices and has committed offences under Sections 132 (1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of Act, 2017. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.10.2020. The petitioner moved bail application, before the learned CJM, which was dismissed by an order dated 21.11.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, who granted bail on 14.12.2020 with certain conditions. The petitioner could not comply with the conditions imposed and prayed this court, which by an order dated 22.02.2021, refused to modify the conditions, however, granted a further period of 6 weeks to comply with the conditions. The petitioner still could not comply with the conditions, and approached the learned CJM seeking mandatory bail. The learned CJM by an order dated 22.03.2021, dismissed the petition. The petitioner counsel submitted that he was remanded into JC on 29.10.2020 and the Investigating Agency did not file charge sheet within the statutory period of 90 days, and therefore, the learned CJM ought to have granted bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. The court observed that the petitioner without complying the conditions, has taken the next available opportunity of filing a petition under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., and the CJM held that once a person already granted bail, he cannot file a petition under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court, considering circumstances and the quantum of alleged tax evasion and the pandemic situation, gave one more opportunity and granted bail to the petitioner, on the very same conditions imposed vide order dated 14.12.2020.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the quantum of alleged tax evasion and also considering the pandemic situation, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity and grant bail to the petitioner.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 –– Bail –– The petitioner prayed for setting aside the order dated 22.03.2021 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged that the petitioner has availed ITC based on fake invoices and has committed offences under Sections 132 (1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of Act, 2017. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 29.10.2020. The petitioner moved bail application, before the learned CJM, which was dismissed by an order dated 21.11.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, who granted bail on 14.12.2020 with certain conditions. The petitioner could not comply with the conditions imposed and prayed this court, which by an order dated 22.02.2021, refused to modify the conditions, however, granted a further period of 6 weeks to comply with the conditions. The petitioner still could not comply with the conditions, and approached the learned CJM seeking mandatory bail. The learned CJM by an order dated 22.03.2021, dismissed the petition. The petitioner counsel submitted that he was remanded into JC on 29.10.2020 and the Investigating Agency did not file charge sheet within the statutory period of 90 days, and therefore, the learned CJM ought to have granted bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. The court observed that the petitioner without complying the conditions, has taken the next available opportunity of filing a petition under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., and the CJM held that once a person already granted bail, he cannot file a petition under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court, considering circumstances and the quantum of alleged tax evasion and the pandemic situation, gave one more opportunity and granted bail to the petitioner, on the very same conditions imposed vide order dated 14.12.2020.