Dilip Kumar Ramgopal Tibrewal Alias Dilip Kumar Tibrewal vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application. The Court found that the petitioner's argument for parity with a co-accused, Renu Singh, was distinguishable. The Court noted that Renu Singh had been granted anticipatory bail in a context where one of her cases was quashed and assessment orders were under challenge in writ petitions. In contrast, the present petitioner faces allegations of misappropriating ITC amounting to Rs. 29,11,064/-, as detailed in paragraph 206 of the case diary, where he is identified as the proprietor of M/s August Overseas Private Limited and M/s Shagun Enterprises. The Court concluded that the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case were distinct from that of Renu Singh, rendering the argument for parity inapplicable. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Facts

The petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ramgopal Tibrewal, is seeking anticipatory bail in Telco PS Case No. 104 of 2018, registered for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(e), and 132(1)(i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax (JGST) Act. The petitioner contends he was falsely implicated and did not misappropriate Input Tax Credit (ITC), having purchased goods from duly registered suppliers. He argues that a valid GSTIN certificate presumes lawful business operations and that he, as a purchaser, is not the beneficiary of ITC. The State opposes the bail, citing paragraph 206 of the supplementary case diary, which alleges the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s August Overseas Private Limited and M/s Shagun Enterprises and has misappropriated ITC amounting to Rs. 29,11,064/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of misappropriation of Input Tax Credit under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(e), and 132(1)(i) of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argues that he has been falsely implicated and has not engaged in any misappropriation of ITC. He asserts that his purchases were made from registered suppliers, and the existence of a valid GSTIN certificate creates a presumption of legitimate business. He further contends that as a purchaser, he is not the beneficiary of ITC. He also points to a co-accused, Renu Singh, who was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench, suggesting parity. State's Arguments: The State opposes the bail application, highlighting paragraph 206 of the case diary. This paragraph alleges that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s August Overseas Private Limited and M/s Shagun Enterprises and is accused of misappropriating ITC to the tune of Rs. 29,11,064/-.