This Court is not inclined to entertain these Anticipatory Bail Petitions. all these criminal original petitions shall stand dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017- Anticipatory Bail -– The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 132 Act. It was alleged by the respondents that concerned companies were involved in issuing fake invoices without supply of goods and also received fake invoices without receipt of goods. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioners have attended the enquiry and given statements and also submitted voluminous documents to show that there was movement of goods from the factory. The respondent counsel submitted that investigation against petitioners revealed that they have passed on ITC by issuing invoices without supply of goods/services and also have availed ITC on fake invoices. In the statements recorded, these persons have admitted that fake invoices were issued without supply of any goods and only with an intention to enable the receiver to avail ITC. The court observed that the department must be given the complete independence to investigate the cases since it involves the national interest. When a case involves serious offences, grant of Anticipatory Bail by itself will cause prejudice to the investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the Anticipatory Bail Petitions. Further held that it is open to the petitioners to make complete disclosure by submitting all the relevant documents before the respondent and it is for the respondent to consider the same and satisfy themselves and proceed further in accordance with law.
This Court is not inclined to entertain these Anticipatory Bail Petitions. all these criminal original petitions shall stand dismissed.
Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017- Anticipatory Bail -– The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 132 Act. It was alleged by the respondents that concerned companies were involved in issuing fake invoices without supply of goods and also received fake invoices without receipt of goods. The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioners have attended the enquiry and given statements and also submitted voluminous documents to show that there was movement of goods from the factory. The respondent counsel submitted that investigation against petitioners revealed that they have passed on ITC by issuing invoices without supply of goods/services and also have availed ITC on fake invoices. In the statements recorded, these persons have admitted that fake invoices were issued without supply of any goods and only with an intention to enable the receiver to avail ITC. The court observed that the department must be given the complete independence to investigate the cases since it involves the national interest. When a case involves serious offences, grant of Anticipatory Bail by itself will cause prejudice to the investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court rejected the Anticipatory Bail Petitions. Further held that it is open to the petitioners to make complete disclosure by submitting all the relevant documents before the respondent and it is for the respondent to consider the same and satisfy themselves and proceed further in accordance with law.