9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 794 - HC - GSTSeeking grant of pre-arrest bail - trading on the basis of false invoices without actually supplying the underlying goods - HELD THAT -Prima facie complicity of the petitioner is well apparent; therefore his custodial investigation would be very much necessary to unearth the truth. There is no option except to dismiss the petition - Petition dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to Pre-Arrest Bail under Section 482 BNSS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 482 BNSS empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, including granting pre-arrest bail. The Court must balance the right of the accused against the need for effective investigation and prosecution, especially in economic offences under GST laws. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the allegations and the evidence produced by the respondents, including the statements of a key witness, the Director-cum-Authorized Signatory of M/s Jay Kay Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd., recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The statements reveal that the petitioner was involved in trading fake invoices without actual supply of goods and availed substantial input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 84.19 crore. Key Evidence and Findings: The witness identified the petitioner as the person managing three firms used for issuing false invoices. The petitioner provided GST and account numbers of these firms, facilitating money transfers. The witness also confirmed that the petitioner did not deal directly with buyers but coordinated through a middleman, Mr. Ripan Kumar Jain. Numerous invoices and e-waybill analyses indicated no actual movement of goods, confirming the fraudulent nature of transactions. Application of Law to Facts: The GST Act criminalizes issuance and use of false invoices to claim ITC. The petitioner's involvement in managing firms issuing such invoices and availing ITC without supply of goods constitutes an offence under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the GST Act. Given the prima facie evidence, the Court found that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is essential for unearthing the truth. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, had no proprietorship or partnership in the firms, and had no role in the alleged crime. He also claimed non-receipt of complaint and expressed willingness to cooperate. The respondents countered that the petitioner was deliberately evading the process of law despite repeated notices and was the key person managing the firms. Conclusions: The Court found the petitioner's contentions unsubstantiated in light of the documentary and testimonial evidence. The petitioner's evasiveness and the gravity of the offence militated against granting pre-arrest bail. Issue 2: Falsity of Invoices and Non-Supply of Goods Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the GST Act penalize issuance and use of invoices without actual supply of goods or services. The law aims to curb tax evasion and fraudulent claims of ITC. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court relied heavily on the statements of the Director of M/s Jay Kay Hosiery Mills Pvt. Ltd., who admitted to trading in fake invoices and parallel invoices without actual supply. The e-waybill analysis corroborated the absence of goods movement, reinforcing the fraudulent nature of transactions. Key Evidence and Findings: Detailed tables of suppliers, GSTINs, taxable values, and ITC availed were produced. The witness explained the modus operandi involving multiple firms with cancelled GST registrations, issuance of fake invoices, and transfer of funds through bank accounts without actual goods movement. The petitioner was identified as the person managing these firms and facilitating these transactions. Application of Law to Facts: The evidence established a clear pattern of tax evasion through fake invoicing. The petitioner's role in managing the firms and providing GST and account details for fraudulent transactions implicated him directly under the GST Act offences. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner denied involvement or proprietorship and claimed innocence. However, the Court gave greater weight to the detailed statement of the witness and documentary evidence, which were consistent and comprehensive. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the invoices were indeed false and used to claim ineligible ITC, and the petitioner was complicit in this scheme. Issue 3: Role and Identity of the Petitioner in the Firms Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Liability under the GST Act extends to persons who manage or control firms involved in issuance of false invoices. The Court must ascertain whether the petitioner had any proprietorship, partnership, or managerial role in the implicated firms. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The witness statements identified the petitioner as the person managing three firms used for fake invoicing. The petitioner's provision of GSTIN and bank account details further established his control over these entities. The petitioner's failure to respond to repeated notices and evasion of investigation reinforced this conclusion. Key Evidence and Findings: The witness specifically named the petitioner as the managing person. The petitioner's mobile numbers and addresses were linked to the registered addresses of the firms. The petitioner's own admissions during investigation, such as signing ledger copies and acknowledging understanding of invoices, indicated involvement. Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's control and management of the firms engaged in fraudulent activities attract liability under the GST Act. Mere denial without substantive rebuttal was insufficient. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's denial of proprietorship and role was rejected in view of the evidence and witness statements. Conclusions: The Court found that the petitioner was indeed managing the affairs of the implicated firms and was not an innocent third party. Issue 4: Cooperation with Investigation and Evasion of Process Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts consider cooperation with investigation as a factor in granting bail. Deliberate evasion or non-cooperation weighs against bail. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The respondents submitted that the petitioner ignored four repeated notices and was evading the process of law. The petitioner's willingness to join proceedings was noted but contradicted by the conduct during investigation. Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's non-appearance despite notices and the need for custodial interrogation suggested evasion. The Court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the truth. Application of Law to Facts: The petitioner's conduct did not merit the concession of pre-arrest bail. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's claim of readiness to cooperate was not supported by the record. Conclusions: The Court held that the petitioner was deliberately evading investigation and thus bail was not justified. Issue 5: Necessity of Custodial Interrogation Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Custodial interrogation is warranted where it is necessary to uncover the truth and where the accused's involvement is prima facie established. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Given the complexity and scale of the fraudulent transactions, the Court found custodial interrogation of the petitioner essential to unearth further evidence and clarify the modus operandi. Key Evidence and Findings: The large sums involved, detailed invoices, and the petitioner's role in managing firms indicated the need for custodial interrogation. Application of Law to Facts: The Court declined pre-arrest bail to enable custodial interrogation. Conclusions: Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary and pre-arrest bail was refused accordingly. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
The Court established the core principle that in cases of economic offences involving large-scale tax evasion through false invoicing, where prima facie evidence implicates the accused, custodial interrogation is justified and pre-arrest bail may be refused. The Court concluded that the petitioner's denial of involvement was contradicted by detailed witness statements and documentary evidence, and that the petitioner's deliberate evasion of the investigation process militated against the grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, with the Court clarifying that the observations made were not expressions of opinion on the merits of the case, and that pending applications stood disposed of.
|
