9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tune of Rs. 1,04,33,454/-. During investigation, it has been found that before filing of the complaint, the applicants have reversed the amount of Input Tax credit to tune of Rs. 113,90,49,678/-. It is alleged that the Applicant - Mohd. Tabrez Amdani is Director of M/s. Topisto Products Pvt. Ltd. and Applicant - Ashish Kumar Tiwari is Accountant in the said firm through which they availed the aforesaid ITC. It is also alleged that they have formed following 4 other firms to avail ITC in a fradulant manner i.e. (1) M/s Andomeda Pvt Ltd, GSTIN-22AASCA8880H1Z8 (2) M/s Mahamaya Agency and Borewells, GSTIN-22ADVPT4978Q2Z6 (3) M/s. Next Teaser, GSTIN-22AQWPD1778J1ZH and (4) M/s Paul Enterprises, GSTIN- 22AVQPP2777A2ZI. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, offences mentioned above have been registered against the applicants and they have been arrested on 29.11.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants being innocent have been roped in a false case. It is further submitted that the Applicant - Mohd. Tabrez Andani is the Director of M/s. Topisto Products Pvt. Ltd. and Applicant - Ashish Tiwari is merely an employee of the said firm and managing the work of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling ITC amount to the tune of more than Rs. 5 Crores. In the said application, the argument was advanced that they had already deposited Rs. 76 Lacs therefore, remaining amount being less than Rs. 5 Crore in view of Section 132(4)(5) of the G.S.T Act, falls within the category of bailable offence. He submits that such contention advanced on behalf of the applicant was not accepted and his bail was rejected on 15.07.2022 and the said order was duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Crl) No. 8128/2022 order dated 12.12.2022. Therefore, the contention of counsel for the applicant that said offence is bailable in nature has no merit. In support of his contention, learned counsel refers to Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation {(2013) 7 SCC 466} and refers paras - 23 to 25, which are reproduced here under:- "23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal {(1987) 2 SCC 36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Line TS 2516} wherein the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking relief against the arrest and said matter has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr) No. 4430/2019 vide order dated 27.05.2019. He further submit that the said view has also been reiterated in SLP (Crl) No. 4322-4324/2019 vide order dated 29.05.2019. He also submits that in the matter of Ratnambar Kaushik (Supra) the allegation was with regard to Section 132 (1) (a), (h), (k) and (l) r/w Section 132 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017, whereas, in the present case the allegation is relating to creating fake firms and availing ITC in a fraudulent manner, therefore, the said judgment is of no help to the applicant. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the bail application as well as the documents annexed thereto carefully. 7. Keeping in view the background of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to reiterate the principles laid down in the matter of Mohd Sharief vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses, if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson". 8. Further, in the recent judgment of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, (2023) 2 SCC 621, the following was observed in the paragraphs 8 and 9:- 8. In considering the application for bail, it is noted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2022 and while in custody, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Even if it is taken note that the alleged evasion of tax by the petitioner is to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(l)(i), the punishment provided is, imprisonment which may extend to 5 years and fine. The petitioner has alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
