Premprakash Bansal vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court held that the evidence collected in the course of investigation prima facie showed that the complainant delivered the goods to Sarfaraz at the instance of the applicant, and thereafter, the applicant denied the complainant's claim and refused to pay. The Court found the conflicting communications from the GST authorities regarding the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to be a significant point. The initial letter suggested ITC was availed, while a subsequent letter stated it was not. The Court noted that the GST officer could not satisfactorily explain this anomaly. Despite the applicant's contention that he had not availed ITC, the Court found that the facts of the case constituted the offence of cheating. The Court ultimately rejected the application for pre-arrest bail, finding that the evidence, including the delivery challans and the initial GST communication, prima facie supported the prosecution's case.

Facts

The applicant, Mr. Premprakash Bansal, sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the complainant supplied 300 bags of cloves worth Rs. 74,21,629/- to the applicant's firm, M/s. Bansal Traders, through a co-accused, Sarfaraz Jaliyawala. The complainant claimed non-receipt of payment after delivering the goods. The applicant denied receiving the goods. Initially, the High Court declined pre-arrest bail, finding prima facie evidence of delivery based on warehouse statements and drivers' testimonies. A letter from the Joint Commissioner (Anti Evasion) CGST indicated that M/s. Bansal Traders had availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) against the invoices for these goods. However, a subsequent letter from the GST authorities clarified that M/s. Bansal Traders had not availed ITC against these specific invoices, treating the earlier report as inconclusive.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has made out a case for pre-arrest bail in light of the conflicting communications from the GST authorities regarding the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC)? Petitioner's Arguments: - The applicant argued that he had not claimed ITC against the disputed invoices, and the subsequent letter dated 13th August 2021 from the GST authorities clarified that no ITC was availed. This, coupled with the lack of evidence of market yard entry for the delivery trucks, suggests the applicant has been falsely implicated. - The applicant relied on the letter dated 13th August 2021, which he contended clarified the earlier letter and confirmed non-availment of ITC. Revenue/State's Arguments: - The State and complainant contended that despite the letters from the CGST, there was sufficient material to believe the goods were delivered to Sarfaraz at the applicant's instance. - They highlighted that the co-accused, Sarfaraz, was denied pre-arrest bail by this Court and the Apex Court. - They relied on two delivery challans produced by Sarfaraz, bearing his signature, admitting delivery of clove bags by the complainant, and the invoices raised thereafter.