Sarvesh Kumar Pandey vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey. The decision was based on several considerations. Firstly, the Court noted the nature of the allegations against the applicant concerning fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017. Secondly, it took into account that further investigation had been completed and a complaint had been filed against the applicant. Thirdly, the Court considered the maximum punishment provided under the CGST Act, which is up to 5 years, and the fact that the offence is compoundable. Finally, the Court acknowledged that the applicant had been in custody since May 4, 2024. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Chief Justice found it appropriate to grant bail. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The bail order was to remain in force until the disposal of the case.

Facts

The applicant, Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, filed a First Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was arrested in connection with Crime No.21/FIC/2024-25, registered at the Central GST, Commissionerate, Raipur, for offences under Sections 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017. The prosecution alleged that the applicant utilized fake bills to fraudulently avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 71,38,39,858/-. The applicant contended he was innocent, falsely implicated, and had received and utilized goods against invoices on which ITC was availed, as stated in his Section 70 statement. He also argued that no loss was caused to the government exchequer and the offence is compoundable with a maximum punishment of up to 5 years. The applicant had been in jail since May 4, 2024. The respondent admitted that further investigation was complete and a complaint had been filed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the allegations of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment under Section 132(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that he is innocent and falsely implicated. He claimed to have duly received and utilized goods against the invoices on which ITC was availed, and that this was stated in his Section 70 statement. He asserted that no loss of Rs. 71,38,39,858/- was caused to the government exchequer. Furthermore, he highlighted that the maximum punishment under the CGST Act is up to 5 years and the offence is compoundable. He also pointed out that he has been in custody since May 4, 2024, and further detention would serve no purpose. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent admitted that further investigation was completed and a complaint had been filed against the applicant. They contended that the offence is compoundable, but subject to the condition of depositing the amount along with interest and an equal amount as penalty.