Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail. It is alleged that the applicant along with his father and brother has floated fake companies and prepared false documents with intention to avail and utilize inadmissible ‘Input Tax Credit’ and to avail the export benefits. The father and the brother of the applicant were summoned and were arrested for the offences under Section 132(1)(b), 132(1(c) and Section 132 (e)(e) of Act. The applicant preferred application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court apprehending arrest. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court vide order dated 30th January, 2021. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The father and brother of the applicant were already arrested and they were granted bail. The respondent counsel submitted that the transactions are prima facie suspicious and the complicity of the applicant is established during the course of investigation. The court agreed with the submissions of the respondent.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail. It is alleged that the applicant along with his father and brother has floated fake companies and prepared false documents with intention to avail and utilize inadmissible ‘Input Tax Credit’ and to avail the export benefits. The father and the brother of the applicant were summoned and were arrested for the offences under Section 132(1)(b), 132(1(c) and Section 132 (e)(e) of Act. The applicant preferred application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court apprehending arrest. The said application was rejected by the Sessions Court vide order dated 30th January, 2021. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. The father and brother of the applicant were already arrested and they were granted bail. The respondent counsel submitted that the transactions are prima facie suspicious and the complicity of the applicant is established during the course of investigation. The court agreed with the submissions of the respondent.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.