Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2022 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 133 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of bail - availment of fraudulent credit - fake GST invoices issued by the Traders of Bullion and Diamond Products without supply of corresponding goods - Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that so far case of present applicant is concerned, his role and modus operandi, unearth, while the authority was investigating the case of Bharat Soni and others. In the present case, the applicant herein being a Director and Proprietor of both the firms have categorically stated that his company made deposit of Rs. 2 crores to Electronic Cash Ledger and also had made payment totaling Rs.90 lakhs by reversing the alleged ITC. It is evident that the applicant has paid Rs.2,90,00,000/- through Electronic Cash Ledger as well cash. The amount involved is Rs.9.33 crores. In such circumstances, more than 10% amount has been deposited. It is settled law that there is no straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case - Here in the present case, after the arrest, the applicant has shown his bonafideness as discussed hereinabove. The applicant does not have any past record. The authority has expressed the apprehension that if bail is granted, the applicant will flee from justice and considering the pending investigation, his custody is necessary. This contention having no any merits, as merely raising the contention is not enough but it should be substantiate by acceptable material. In the present case, nothing on record to show that the investigation qua applicant is incomplete and he having tendency to flee away from justice. The entire documentary evidence seized by the authority. In such circumstances, when the authority failed to point out that the further custody of the applicant is necessary, and considering the particular facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in mind the settled law laid down in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, it was observed that detention of the accused for an indefinite period is in violation of Article 21. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.
|