Ronak Beriwal vs. State Of Odisha
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER 09.07.2021
1. The matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
The Petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Case No.2 of 2019 of CT & GST Enforcement Unit, Jajpur, Jajpur Road, corresponding to 2(C) CC Case No.09 of 2020 running for the alleged commission of offences punishable under section 132 (1)(b)(c) and (1) of Odisha GST Act, 2017, has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard Mr.B.P.Das, the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.Sunil Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel for CT and GST.
Perused the complaint with the annexed documents as well as the affidavits filed form both sides.
// 2 //
The alleged offences are said to have committed during the period 01.07.2017 to 25.11.2019. The Petitioner being the proprietor of M/s.G.S. Steel and Alloys Company having its office at Civil Township, Rourkela has been arraigned as one of the accused in this case with three others.
It is said that in such capacity, as the proprietor of above Company, fictitious purchase of goods wroth Rs.14,44,00,143/- from seventeen (17) firms which are said to be functionally non-existent and fake. It is said that fake invoices without receipt of goods have been given and Input Tax Credit (ITC) of a sum of Rs.4,39,323,026/- has been received. The pin pointed allegation is that despite non-receipt of goods with these fake purchases, such goods have been shown to have sold and bogus ITC has been passed to the receipents on the strength of fake invoices which has been withdrawn by the Petitioner and other accused person.
It is further stated that the Petitioner in collusion with co-accused persons has created and operated all those fictitious firms in pen and papers in the name persons who have no such means at all.
Considering the submissions made and on going through the materials on record; further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner is said to be involved in commission of economic offences, which are grave in
// 3 //
nature for making huge unlawful gain by causing huge loss to the State Exchequer by putting up the show for such sincere involvement in business and carrying out the same, his entitlement to the huge sum as incentive in the form of Input Tax Credit (ITC) flowed which he received having the tendency of foiling the entire move in introducing this new Tax Regime, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.
However, it is observed that in the event the Petitioner surrenders before the learned Court in seisin of the case and moves for his release on bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order and disposed of early in accordance with law so as to enable the Petitioner to move the next higher forum early in case necessity so arises.
The ABLAPL stands disposed of accordingly. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798 dated 15th April, 2021. (D. Dash)
Judge Narayan
Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.