Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 973 - HC - Service TaxSeeking grant of Regular Bail - shell/defunct companies - issuance of invoices without providing any services - formation of cartel to siphon the public funds running into crores of rupees - As per the prosecution case, the petitioner never held any position in the management of M/s. Skillar Enterprises India Pvt. Limited. and not involved in day to day affairs of the company - HELD THAT:- FIR was registered after considering the findings of the DGGST investigation, SIEMENS Internal investigation, and Forensic audit report. In all the reports it is conclusively established that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused played an active role in getting fake invoices and in routing the diverted amount back to the DesignTech and others assigned by it. Finally considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and huge magnitude of the fraud running into several crores of rupees, the IO is still in the process of securing various incriminating documents/records from various Central and State Government Agencies including Income Tax Authorities, GST officials, ROC authorities, Bank officials to correlate and verify the nature and quantum of fraud and modus operandi adopted for incorporating shell companies, raising of fake invoices, routing back the amount through various associated shell companies. Hence petitioner, does not deserve for bail. The object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called upon. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, the basic principle of our criminal justice system is bail, not jail. Considering the specific contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General that the investigating agency requires couple of weeks to conclude the investigation and after that there is no necessity of judicial custody of the petitioners and also in view of the rejection of the petition filed by the CID in the Court below for police custody of the petitioners herein and the same was unchallenged by the respondents - there is no necessity to grant of police custody of the petitioners - this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, but with some conditions - petition allowed.
|