The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to advocate/tax practitioner who failed to verify the documents for GST registration of a firm which is responsible for wrongfully claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) and held that advocate is not liable for verifying client’s fake documents in Firm Registration.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary has observed that it is neither the duty nor the responsibility of the petitioner to verify the documents which were furnished by his client to him and Mr. Pankaj Singh who was representing P.K. Traders went away after taking away all the documents after registration of the proprietary firm.
The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a tax practitioner and in connivance with the co-accused has facilitated for registration of a proprietary firm on the basis of fake and vague documents for evading huge tax of government. The allegations against the petitioner are all false and drawing attention of this Court to the FIR of the case the petitioner admits that he facilitated GST registration of the co- accused in the name and style of P.K. Traders.
Read More: GST Officers Can’t Adopt Same Template For All Demand Orders: Delhi High Court
The petitioner submitted that Input Tax Credit (ITC) is against the co-accused and there is no allegation against the petitioner of having any share of the same. It is also submitted that the petitioner is still an Advocate by profession and established tax practitioner, hence there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner undertakes to furnish sufficient security including cash security and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The court while granting the anticipatory bail to the advocate held that in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, he shall be released on bail on depositing cash security of Rs. 50,000/- and on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Telco P.S. Case No.104 of 2018 (G.R. No. 2027 of 2018) with the condition that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish his mobile number and a copy of his Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the pendency of the case subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Case Details
Case Title: Satya Prakash Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand
Case No.: A.B.A. No. 2096 of 2024
Date: 20.01.2025
Counsel For Applicant: Amit Kr. Das
Counsel For Respondent: Pankaj Kumar
