The High Court of Rajasthan while keeping in view that the petitioners are already in jail for 450 days and no further investigation or recovery is to be made for the purpose of the case granted bail to the petitioner accused of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 132 (1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
The Petitioner, Mohit Vijay filed the bailed application under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Criminal Complaint filed at Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur (Raj.) for the offense of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
The Counsel for the petitioner contended that allegation against the petitioners is of having issued invoices giving benefit to companies who availed the benefit of ITC. A list of the 36 companies has been mentioned in the complaint. However, no action has been taken against the concerned persons of the said companies.
It was further submitted that no further investigation is required to be conducted against the accused petitioners and they are in judicial custody for long.
However, the counsel appearing for the Revenue strongly opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioners have committed a huge economic offense and a huge amount of CGST has been evaded resulting a huge loss of revenue since fraudulent and forged invoices were issued in relation to 34 companies, petitioners created ghost companies which were fraudulent and created only for the purpose of issuing such invoices resulted in giving benefit to as many as 1878 customers in different 21 states.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma while keeping in view that the petitioners are already in jail for 450 days and no further investigation or recovery is to be made for the purpose of the case granted bail to the petitioner accused of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit under Section 132 (1)(b)(c)(f)(j) and (I) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
Firstly, the court directed the petitioner to remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel.
Secondly, the court directed the petitioner will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.
Thirdly, the court directed the petitioner to surrender their passport, if any, and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit.
“We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by us if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this Court,” the court lastly said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
