Prathipati Teene Venkayamma and Others Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Introduction: In a significant legal development, the Andhra Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the case of Prathipati Teene Venkayamma and Others Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh. The court’s decision underscores the principle that mere apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence cannot serve as valid grounds for refusing bail. This ruling comes amidst allegations of wrongful claims of GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) by Avexa Corporation Private Limited (ACPL) and other related parties.
Case Background: The case revolves around multiple criminal petitions filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by various accused parties. These petitions seek anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 63 of 2024 registered at Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada. The allegations pertain to offences under Sections 420, 409, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution’s case, as presented in the report dated February 24, 2024, and subsequent counter-affidavits, is built on the following points:
1. Search and Seizure Operations: The Andhra Pradesh State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (APSDRI) conducted search operations under Section 67 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (APGST) Act, 2017, at various premises of ACPL. It was alleged that ACPL had improperly availed GST ITC based on non-existent services.
2. Investigations and Findings: The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) in Hyderabad had previously investigated the matter, resulting in a Show Cause Notice proposing a penalty of approximately Rs. 16 Crores for irregular ITC claims.
3. Irregular ITC Claims: ACPL allegedly claimed ITC without receiving the corresponding services from July 2017 to March 2022. The company transferred these irregularly claimed ITC amounts to various entities without providing any actual services.
4. Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts: The prosecution argued that ACPL misrepresented facts in their GSTR-3B returns, indicating receipt of services they did not actually receive. The company was accused of suppressing information, thereby violating the CGST Act, 2017.
5. Admissions and Confessions: Kurra Jogeswara Rao (A.2) admitted in voluntary statements that ACPL wrongfully availed and utilized irregular ITC amounting to Rs. 2,62,56,750/-, making the amount recoverable under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
6. Transfer of Irregular ITC: The investigation revealed that ACPL transferred irregular ITC to fictitious entities and subcontractors, implicating multiple companies in the misappropriation of government funds.
Petitioners’ Defense
