Considering the investigation as per the case diary and the allegations of Department against the applicant, this court is of the opinion that request of the applicant as regards grant of anticipatory bail application has to be turned down.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought protection from the arrest on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The applicant has not received any SCN u/s 73 of the Act. The Respondent has already seized relevant documents in connection with transaction, so custodial interrogation of the applicant is unwarranted. The maximum punishment u/s. 132 is of Five years. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant has fraudulently passed ITC to the tune of Rs. 2,54,61,612 without actual receipt of goods and also availed ITC of Rs. 15,22,02,368/¬ from non existent tax payer. The court observed that considering the investigation as per the case diary and the allegations of Department against the applicant, the supplier are bogus firms and were created to do paper transaction only.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Considering the investigation as per the case diary and the allegations of Department against the applicant, this court is of the opinion that request of the applicant as regards grant of anticipatory bail application has to be turned down.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Anticipatory Bail -- The petitioner sought protection from the arrest on the ground that he is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The applicant has not received any SCN u/s 73 of the Act. The Respondent has already seized relevant documents in connection with transaction, so custodial interrogation of the applicant is unwarranted. The maximum punishment u/s. 132 is of Five years. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation. The respondent counsel submitted that the applicant has fraudulently passed ITC to the tune of Rs. 2,54,61,612 without actual receipt of goods and also availed ITC of Rs. 15,22,02,368/¬ from non existent tax payer. The court observed that considering the investigation as per the case diary and the allegations of Department against the applicant, the supplier are bogus firms and were created to do paper transaction only.
Held that:- The Hon’ble Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.