Since the offence relates to tax evasion and fall under the economic offence which does not fall in ordinary offence, hence the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant prayed for bail, for the offences committed under section 132 of the Act, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The search which is shown to be conducted on 29-12-2020 is not as per procedure and the witness who are shown to be present at the spot were threatened by the respondent, various documents have been seized, the detail of which has not been given to him. The statement of the applicant recorded by the IO is not at all admissible in evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant has availed fake ITC Credit about Rs. 26.46 crores in the name of fake invoices of fifteen firms without supplying the goods. The court observed that before searching the premises, the department has verified the suppliers of the applicant firm and after verification, the applicant was called for his statement and the evidence collected by the department was shown to him. The applicant through his firms has availed 26.46 crores input tax credit without receipt of goods or services from the non-existent fake firms. The offence relates to tax evasion and does not fall in ordinary offence punishable upto 5 years imprisonment and there is every livelihood that the investigation of the case will be hampered by granting bail.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court rejected the bail application.
Since the offence relates to tax evasion and fall under the economic offence which does not fall in ordinary offence, hence the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail -- The applicant prayed for bail, for the offences committed under section 132 of the Act, on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The search which is shown to be conducted on 29-12-2020 is not as per procedure and the witness who are shown to be present at the spot were threatened by the respondent, various documents have been seized, the detail of which has not been given to him. The statement of the applicant recorded by the IO is not at all admissible in evidence. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant has availed fake ITC Credit about Rs. 26.46 crores in the name of fake invoices of fifteen firms without supplying the goods. The court observed that before searching the premises, the department has verified the suppliers of the applicant firm and after verification, the applicant was called for his statement and the evidence collected by the department was shown to him. The applicant through his firms has availed 26.46 crores input tax credit without receipt of goods or services from the non-existent fake firms. The offence relates to tax evasion and does not fall in ordinary offence punishable upto 5 years imprisonment and there is every livelihood that the investigation of the case will be hampered by granting bail.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court rejected the bail application.