Anticipatory bail application dismissed
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail. The petitioner submitted that she is a lady and does not have any criminal antecedents deserves the concession of anticipatory bail, as she has been falsely framed in the instant case at the behest and instance of the GST Department. The respondent opposing the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was an active conspirator in the crime, inasmuch as, she was well aware about the nefarious activities of her husband, who has floated as many as 25 shell companies in his name to avail the fraudulent Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs. 17.65 Crores. Repeated summons were issued under Section 70 for recording her statement, however, she had been avoiding the same. The court observed that there are serious and specific allegations leveled against the petitioner for which her custodial interrogation would be imperative, more so, since she allegedly removed crucial documents having a direct link with the proceedings, which were pending against her and her husband under the CGST Act.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail. The petitioner submitted that she is a lady and does not have any criminal antecedents deserves the concession of anticipatory bail, as she has been falsely framed in the instant case at the behest and instance of the GST Department. The respondent opposing the prayer and submitted that the petitioner was an active conspirator in the crime, inasmuch as, she was well aware about the nefarious activities of her husband, who has floated as many as 25 shell companies in his name to avail the fraudulent Input Tax Credit of approximately Rs. 17.65 Crores. Repeated summons were issued under Section 70 for recording her statement, however, she had been avoiding the same. The court observed that there are serious and specific allegations leveled against the petitioner for which her custodial interrogation would be imperative, more so, since she allegedly removed crucial documents having a direct link with the proceedings, which were pending against her and her husband under the CGST Act.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition.