GST Evasion: Bombay HC refuses Anticipatory Bail to the person accused of Wrongfully availing ITC [Read Order]

GST Evasion - Anticipatory Bail - Wrongfully availing ITC - Taxscan

The Bombay High Court refused to grant the  Anticipatory Bail to the person accused of Wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit (ITC).

Mr. Desai, Counsel for the applicant, has denied the entire transaction and submitted that the applicant had never entered into a transaction with the complainant, nor the applicant availed Input Tax Credit. Mr. Desai submitted that the applicant has raised a grievance with the GST Officer thereby bringing to his notice, the fraudulent invoices were raised by the complainant.

Mr. Desai invited the attention of the court to a Certificate issued by M/s. Rahul Pramod & Co. Chartered Accountants, to submit that, M/s. Bansal Traders has not availed the credit of CGST and SGST in GSTR-9 of Financial Year 2019-20 filed on 5th February 2021 from the available credits in GSTR-2A returns.

Mr. Desai, submitted that neither the delivery challans nor the invoices were ever acknowledged or received by the applicant and a false case has been filed against him. Mr. Desai further submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required since the prosecution is largely relying on documentary evidence. It is submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai and his presence for investigation and trial can be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. On these grounds, the applicant seeks bail imposing appropriate conditions. On these grounds, the applicant seeks bail.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that in terms of GST, Input Tax Credit Rules, availing the Input Tax Credit Invoices issued by the supplier of the goods is a mandatory document. Herein, the response of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST in clear terms says, that M/s. Bansal Traders has availed the ITC against Invoices No.106 and 107. Besides, the statements of the Manager of the Warehouse, owner of the trucks, and the statements of drivers, prima-facie, show that goods were delivered at the request of M/s. Bansal Traders to and at the godown premises of Sarfaraz.

“In consideration of the facts of the case and the evidence collected in the course of the investigation, I have reason to believe that goods were supplied by the complainant to the applicant. In my view, no case is made out for granting pre-arrest protection to the applicant. The application is rejected,” the court said.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader