The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench has dismissed the second bail application filed by a person accused of availing fake input tax credit (ITC) under GST Act by issuing the counterfeit bills.
The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar has observed that the petitioner created seven fake companies, issued fake good-less invoices, and took credit of Rs.20,28,40,841 causing loss to the Government. The first bail application was dismissed at the stage of the charge sheet, and after that, no new facts have arrived before the Court to entertain the present second bail application.
The petitioner-accused filed the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.. The petitioner has been arrested for the offence(s) under Sections 132(1)(B)(C)(F) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
It was alleged against the petitioner that he issued fake bills for seven firms he managed and claimed fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) by issuing counterfeit bills. The petitioner opened four fake firms and issued fake bills without supplying the goods. It is also alleged against the petitioner that he caused a loss of Rs.20,28,40,841 to the Government by issuing good-less invoices, and this fact has been dealt with in detail in the first bail order passed by this Court on 19.02.2024. The first bail application was dismissed after filing the charge sheet, and after that, no new facts have arrived.
Read More: https://jurishour.in/rajasthan-hc-dismisses-buyers-wp-itc-reversal/
The petitioner contended that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence(s) is five years. The petitioner has been involved in the present matter at the instance of the main accused, Ashutosh Garg. The accused, Ashutosh Garg, has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 26.07.2024, and the petitioner’s case is in parity with the case of Ashutosh Garg. The petitioner has been in custody for nine months and is entitled to bail for prolonged incarceration.
The department contended that the case of Ashutosh Garg is entirely different from that of the present petitioner. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s first bail application after passing a detailed order. No new facts have come into the picture after the passage of the order. After dismissing the first bail application, the petitioner failed to point out the new circumstances. The Apex Court, in the SLP, preferred by the petitioner against the order of his first bail application, dismissed the SLP of the petitioner.
The court, while considering the seriousness of the offences alleged against the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner’s second bail application.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar Versus UOI
Citation: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 6318/2024
Decision Date: 31/07/2024
