GST Evasion: Uttarakhand HC denies Anticipatory Bail due to Non Co-operation during Investigation [Read Order]

While considering an application for anticipatory bail by an accused allegedly involved in claiming input tax credit (ITC) using fake invoices, the Uttarakhand High Court has held that the bail cannot be granted since the allegations are grave and the accused is not co-operating with the department during investigation.

The applicant, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dudani is running two businesses in the name of Suryanchal Furnitech and M/s Doon Trading Company. He was summoned on 12.05.2022, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Rejecting the arguments of the applicant, Justice Ravindra Maithani observed that” In the cases cited on behalf of the applicant, as such no absolute rule is laid down that in the matters pertaining to the Act, custodial interrogation is not required. Therefore, it cannot be said that anticipatory bail has to be granted in each and every case, in which a person is summoned under Section 70 of the Act.”

“Each case depends upon its facts and circumstances. Custodial interrogation is one of the aspects, which is considered in the matters of anticipatory bail. There are other various considerations as illustrated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Sitlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and others,” the Court said.

“The allegations are much grave. It is the case of generating fake and forged invoices so as to claim ITC. In their objections, the respondent no.2 has given categorical details of such dubious transactions and has also submitted as to how in one day, the money has routed in different accounts. The applicant transferred the money in his wife’s account and, subsequently, from her account, it comes to the applicant’s account. It is a kind of act, which effects the economy of the country. Added to it is the non-cooperative attitude of the applicant during enquiry. He was asked as to whether he knows one Rohil Enterprises (Question no.66). He did not reply to it. He said, “I will reply it on the next date of hearing,” the Court said.

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanPremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.