It is directed that in the event of arrest one week prior notice shall be served upon the applicant/accused.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anticipatory Bail -- The applicant sought anticipatory bail, as the persons/officials of the other firms which were involved in evasion of GST were not arrested. The respondent counsel submitted that these firms have already deposited a substantial amount of around Rs. 4 crores. The allegations against the accused are of providing fake invoices for the purpose of availment of fraudulent ICT to the tune of a total sum around Rs. 14 crore. The applicant was involved in supply of fake invoices only and he used to get commission from these firms in lieu of providing such invoices. The court observed that the applicant himself has not availed the ITC, infact, he facilitated number of firms in availment of fraudulent ITC by providing them forged invoices. The applicant/accused has already joined the investigation, he is not required for any custodial interrogation and IO submitted that there is no requirement of the arrest of the accused and no liability of GST is to be deposited by the petitioner. There is no allegation from the side of the department of tampering of evidence or hampering the investigation by the accused.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed that in the event of arrest one week prior notice shall be served upon the applicant, and he is directed to join the investigation as and when directed by the IO.
It is directed that in the event of arrest one week prior notice shall be served upon the applicant/accused.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anticipatory Bail -- The applicant sought anticipatory bail, as the persons/officials of the other firms which were involved in evasion of GST were not arrested. The respondent counsel submitted that these firms have already deposited a substantial amount of around Rs. 4 crores. The allegations against the accused are of providing fake invoices for the purpose of availment of fraudulent ICT to the tune of a total sum around Rs. 14 crore. The applicant was involved in supply of fake invoices only and he used to get commission from these firms in lieu of providing such invoices. The court observed that the applicant himself has not availed the ITC, infact, he facilitated number of firms in availment of fraudulent ITC by providing them forged invoices. The applicant/accused has already joined the investigation, he is not required for any custodial interrogation and IO submitted that there is no requirement of the arrest of the accused and no liability of GST is to be deposited by the petitioner. There is no allegation from the side of the department of tampering of evidence or hampering the investigation by the accused.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court directed that in the event of arrest one week prior notice shall be served upon the applicant, and he is directed to join the investigation as and when directed by the IO.