In a recent judgement, the High Court(HC) of Punjab and Haryana grants bail to a petitioner who was behind the bar for 9 months under the charge of an offence under Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), 2017.
Mr H.S. Brar, Senior Advocate with. Jivitish Singh Dosanjh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr Anshuman Chopra, Senior Standing Counsel, for the respondent.
Saurabh Sharad Srivastava, the petitioner seeks a grant of regular bail in a complaint bearing No. COMA/49/2022 dated 12.4.2022 under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) got information that the accused firm has availed input tax credit to the tune of `5.65 crores from various non-existent suppliers, without receipt of goods. The firm of the accused i.e. M/s Saibro Industries had availed this input tax credit during the period from July 2017 to November 2020 and the investigation revealed that most of the suppliers were not working from the registered premises.
The status of GST registration in the case of some suppliers was even found as cancelled. Some suppliers admitted during the course of the investigation that they issued invoices without a supply of goods. It is alleged that the accused hascommitted the offence punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(i)(3)(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which is cognizable and non-bailable.
It was submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that there is no evidence worth credence to connect him with the alleged offence which, in any case, is punishable for a maximum period of 5 years out of which the petitioner has already been behind custody since the last about 9 months.
It has also been submitted that out of the amount allegedly availed fraudulently as an input tax credit, i.e. amount to the tune of `5.65 crores, the department has already recovered back an amount of about `2.07 crores approximately and as such, the allegation stands scaled down to fraud of `3.6 crores approximately.
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill noticed that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 9 months and that conclusion of the trial is likely to consume time since alarge number of prosecution witnesses have been cited.
The Court viewed that further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The Court ordered to release of the petitioner on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
