Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Goods and Services Tax

No bail to assessee for alleged of wrongful availment of ITC by fictitious transactions

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2021 taxguru.in 2463
Case Name
Paritosh Kumar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement


Paritosh Kumar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)

Conclusion: Assessee who alleged of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the basis of fictitious transactions worth Rs. 258 Crores was not entitled to get default bail as the complaint had been filed within 60 days of their arrest which was within the time prescribed for filing of complaint to entitle or disentitle the accused persons for default bail.

Held:  Assessee had been arrested for alleged violation of CGST Act, 2017 for offence committed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, from where they were sent to judicial custody.  Assessee would submit that as per the provisions of Cr.P.C. it was responsibility of the respective authority to submit charge sheet within 60 days, however, in the present case, no charge-sheet had been filed, therefore, assessee was entitled to be released on bail under section 167(2) but the same had been denied by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against which revision was preferred which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the present writ petition (criminal) had been filed. It was held that the officers under the GST Act was not a police officer, as such, he could not and he did not seek custody of the arrested persons for completing the investigation / inquiry. Section 69(2) oblige the officer authorized to arrest the person to produce before a Magistrate within 24 hours. Immediately upon production the Magistrate may remand him to judicial custody or admit the arrested person to bail in accordance with procedure prescribed under Cr.P.C. Thus, it was quite clear that the GST officers were not the police officers, therefore, they were not required to submit final report as envisaged in Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Moreover, the complaint had been filed within 60 days of their arrest which was within the time prescribed for filing of complaint to entitle or disentitle the accused persons for default bail. As the complaint had been filed within 60 days, therefore, on this count also, assessee was not entitled to get default bail.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 26.06.2021 passed in Criminal Revision No. 62/2021 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur by which he rejected the revision and affirmed the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class in Criminal Case No. 3600/2021 by which he rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 167 Cr.P.C. for grant of default bail.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been arrested for alleged violation of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’) for offence committed under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the Act of 2017 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, from where they were sent to judicial custody. The details of date of arrest as well as date of judicial custody are given below:-

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.