Ankur vs. State Of Haryana

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary reasoning was based on the allegations of fraud, the use of forged documents for GST registration, and the purported claim of input tax credit. The State's arguments regarding purchases from fictitious firms and the impracticality of the business operations at the registered address were significant factors. The Court noted that the petitioner had presented an order cancelling his GST registration with no dues, but this did not negate the allegations of fraud during the period of operation. The Court explicitly stated that its decision was made solely in the context of the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and should not be construed as an observation on the merits of the case for or against the petitioner. No specific GST provisions were discussed in detail, but the context revolved around the alleged misuse of the GST registration and input tax credit mechanism.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankur, sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 0629 registered on June 25, 2019, at Police Station Chandanibagh, District Panipat, under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by the Excise and Taxation Officer (State Tax), Ward No. 11, Panipat, alleging that the petitioner registered his firm under the HGST/CGST Act, 2017, using fake documents and operating from a non-existent address to fraudulently claim input tax credit. The petitioner contended that he had rented the premises prior to registration and was paying taxes, and the FIR was based on the statements of two witnesses. The State argued that the petitioner showed purchases from fictitious firms, specifically M/s Shree Om Sai Traders between January 6, 2019, and January 24, 2019. The registered office was described as being in a narrow lane, making large-scale iron and steel trading impossible, and no other godown was registered.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations of fraud and the use of forged documents for GST registration and input tax credit claims, as per the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the GST Act. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that he had taken the premises on rent before obtaining the GST registration and was paying all his taxes. He claimed the FIR was registered based solely on the statements of two witnesses, despite his business operations. He also presented an order dated February 27, 2019, cancelling his GST registration with no dues pending. Revenue/State's contentions: The State argued that the petitioner had shown purchases from fictitious firms, citing M/s Shree Om Sai Traders as an example for transactions between January 6, 2019, and January 24, 2019. They further contended that the location of the petitioner's registered office in a narrow lane made it impossible for the stated business of iron and steel trading to be conducted there, and no alternative premises were registered.