The petitioner has not been able to make out a case for exercising jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayers made in the present writ petition for granting of bail cannot be granted.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail –-- The petitioner challenged his arrest under the provisions of the Act is illegal as he has been kept in custody in a bailable offence. He was arrested on 30.12.2020, on the ground that he had committed offence under section 132 (1) (b) (c) of the Act and that since the ITC wrongly availed by the petitioner exceeded Rs. Crores, the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and it was a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The petitioner counsel submitted that he was effectively operating four business establishments which had alleged for purchasing fake invoices and sale invoices whereby bogus ITC was claimed to the tune of at least Rs. 11.54 crores and the amount of wrongful ITC passed on through fake sale invoices was not less than Rs. 9.29 crores. The entire action of arresting the petitioner and then his remand was illegal as four specific distinct legal entities were wrongly treated as one and thereupon it was wrongly treated as if the ITC illegally availed exceeded the figure of Rs. 5 crores. In the case of each of the four individual legal entities, the ITC allegedly wrongly availed did not exceed Rs. 5 crores. The respondent submitted that there was ample material on record to show that all of them were effectively operated and controlled only by the petitioner. The KYC details of bank accounts of all the four firms were that of the petitioner. It was his email ID and mobile number that were linked to all the accounts of the firms and the e-Way Bill Registration data also demonstrated that the it was the email of the petitioner that was used for registration in respect of all the four firms. The court observed that it is only the petitioner, who is effectively running and controlling all the four aforesaid firms or business establishments.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The petitioner has not been able to make out a case for exercising jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the prayers made in the present writ petition for granting of bail cannot be granted.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Bail –-- The petitioner challenged his arrest under the provisions of the Act is illegal as he has been kept in custody in a bailable offence. He was arrested on 30.12.2020, on the ground that he had committed offence under section 132 (1) (b) (c) of the Act and that since the ITC wrongly availed by the petitioner exceeded Rs. Crores, the offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term, which could extend to five years and it was a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The petitioner counsel submitted that he was effectively operating four business establishments which had alleged for purchasing fake invoices and sale invoices whereby bogus ITC was claimed to the tune of at least Rs. 11.54 crores and the amount of wrongful ITC passed on through fake sale invoices was not less than Rs. 9.29 crores. The entire action of arresting the petitioner and then his remand was illegal as four specific distinct legal entities were wrongly treated as one and thereupon it was wrongly treated as if the ITC illegally availed exceeded the figure of Rs. 5 crores. In the case of each of the four individual legal entities, the ITC allegedly wrongly availed did not exceed Rs. 5 crores. The respondent submitted that there was ample material on record to show that all of them were effectively operated and controlled only by the petitioner. The KYC details of bank accounts of all the four firms were that of the petitioner. It was his email ID and mobile number that were linked to all the accounts of the firms and the e-Way Bill Registration data also demonstrated that the it was the email of the petitioner that was used for registration in respect of all the four firms. The court observed that it is only the petitioner, who is effectively running and controlling all the four aforesaid firms or business establishments.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition.