this court do not deem fit to grant bail to the accused. Hence, the present application is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 —Bail-- The applicant sought for grant of bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused. The petitioner submitted that they have paid the amount of duty to the supplier who actually deposited the same with the government as per the provisions under the GST laws. The respondent submitted that the applicant engaged in circular trading and has availed most of the amount of ITC from companies owned or controlled by him, without any actual payment of GST at any stage. Further investigation revealed that the applicant have issued invoices to companies without any corresponding supply of the goods. The respondent opposed bail application on the ground that offence has been committed in a much planned manner in the connivance of co-accused in which huge losses are inflicted upon the Govt. Exchequer. The court observed that grant of bail on the ground of parity with the other co-accused persons is not available here since accused, unlike the co-accused persons, despite his arrest in this case has not co-operated with the investigation and he even refused to give his statement. Further, offence alleged against the accused is grave in nature considering the manner in which it committed and the amount involved in commission of the offence.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court dismissed the bail application.
this court do not deem fit to grant bail to the accused. Hence, the present application is dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 —Bail-- The applicant sought for grant of bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused. The petitioner submitted that they have paid the amount of duty to the supplier who actually deposited the same with the government as per the provisions under the GST laws. The respondent submitted that the applicant engaged in circular trading and has availed most of the amount of ITC from companies owned or controlled by him, without any actual payment of GST at any stage. Further investigation revealed that the applicant have issued invoices to companies without any corresponding supply of the goods. The respondent opposed bail application on the ground that offence has been committed in a much planned manner in the connivance of co-accused in which huge losses are inflicted upon the Govt. Exchequer. The court observed that grant of bail on the ground of parity with the other co-accused persons is not available here since accused, unlike the co-accused persons, despite his arrest in this case has not co-operated with the investigation and he even refused to give his statement. Further, offence alleged against the accused is grave in nature considering the manner in which it committed and the amount involved in commission of the offence.
Held that:-The Hon’ble Court dismissed the bail application.