The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons. Accordingly, both the present petitions for grant of anticipatory bail are dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail –- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in two complaint cases filed under Clauses (b), (c) & (1) of Sub Section 1 of Section 132 of the Act, 2017. The counsel submitted that the petitioner came to know that during investigation in aforesaid two cases, the name of the petitioner has surfaced that he has also committed GST fraud though he has no association or connection with the firms of accused. The petitioner is not the owner or proprietor of any of the firms. Further, custodial investigation is not required as the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. The respondent submitted that certain bogus firms are being operated by the petitioner and he is availing fraudulent ITC on the basis of fake invoices and he is further passing on the same by issuing bogus/fake invoices without movement of any goods. The court observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed both the present petitions.
The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons. Accordingly, both the present petitions for grant of anticipatory bail are dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Bail –- The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in two complaint cases filed under Clauses (b), (c) & (1) of Sub Section 1 of Section 132 of the Act, 2017. The counsel submitted that the petitioner came to know that during investigation in aforesaid two cases, the name of the petitioner has surfaced that he has also committed GST fraud though he has no association or connection with the firms of accused. The petitioner is not the owner or proprietor of any of the firms. Further, custodial investigation is not required as the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation. The respondent submitted that certain bogus firms are being operated by the petitioner and he is availing fraudulent ITC on the basis of fake invoices and he is further passing on the same by issuing bogus/fake invoices without movement of any goods. The court observed that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to find out the modus operandi of the petitioner as well as involvement of other persons.
Held that:-The Hon’ble High Court dismissed both the present petitions.