In Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta v. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI [Cr. M. A. No. 1486/2021 dated August 11, 2021], Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta (the Applicant) has filed the current application seeking an Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C).

The Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI (“the Respondent) has contended that according to the ongoing investigation, the Applicant has been accused to allegedly avail false Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) amounting to less than Rupees Five Crores and offence alleged against the Petitioner being a bailable in nature, therefore, there lies no apprehension of arrest. Hence, the present application does not lie maintainable.

Anticipatory Bail denied for bailable offences as value of false ITC claimed being less than 5 crores

The Petitioner on the contrary relying on the case of Naresh Mevabhai Desai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax-1, Unit 21 [R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3512 of 2021 dated June 18, 2021] contends that the Respondent in its Affidavit has provided that the amount of ITC falsely claimed may increase since the investigation is underway, for this reason, some level of protection must be allowed.

The Hon’ble Sessions Court, Rajkot held in favour of the Respondent by observing that there lies no apprehension of arrest since the allegations levelled against the Applicant attracts offences which are bailable in nature, thereby dismissing the current application falling under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, asked the Respondent to provide to the Applicant, a notice at least 10 days prior of making the arrest in case the value of false ITC exceeds beyond 5 Crores and attracts commission of offence non bailable in nature.

Author Bio

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Posts by Date

September 2021