IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Smt. Prathipati Teene Venkayamma and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 1448 Of 2024
Decided On : 19-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. anticipatory bail sought under cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution's case and alleged offences outlined. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial considerations for anticipatory bail. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. presumption of innocence and bail as a rule. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. petitioners' assertions regarding lack of wrongdoing. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. allegations of political targeting and lack of evidence. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. claims of financial wrongdoing and evasion analyzed. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. legal arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedure. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. assessment of director's liability under the g.s.t. act. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 10. political careers and implications of allegations. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. conditions for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 54 , 55) |
| 12. conclusion and order granting anticipatory bail. (Para 56 , 57) |
ORDER:
T MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
1. All these Criminal Petitions are filed, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail by different accused, i.e. Crl.P.No.1448 of 2024 (filed by A.4 & A.5); Crl.P.No.1449 of 2024 (filed by A.2 & A.3); Crl.P.No.1489 of 2024 and Crl.P.No.1539 of 2024 are filed by the Petitioners who are not arrayed as accused in same crime viz. Crime No.63 of 2024 of Machavaram Police Station, Vijayawada, they are being taken up together for disposal through this Common Order.
2. A case has been registered against the Petitioners/A.2 to A.5 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 409, 467, 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, "I.P.C.")
3. I heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt. Y.L. Shivakalpana Reddy learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for C.I.D., in all the petitions.
4. The Prosecution's case, as presented in the report dated 24.02.2024 and outlined in the counter-affidavits submitted on behalf of the respondent-State in four petitions, is as follows:
i. Based on the report dated 24.02.2024 from the Deputy Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (A.P.S.D.R.I.) to Station House Officer, Machavaram Police Station in Vijayawada, a crime had been registered in Crime No.63 of 2024. The report disclosed that Avexa Corporation Private Limited (A.C.P.L.), headquartered at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, is involved in providing works contract services and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax (G.S.T) regime.
ii. The A.P.S.D.R.I. office conducted a search operation under the provisions of Section 67 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (A.P.G.S.T.) Act, 2017, at various premises of the taxpayer, on a reasonable belief that the company in question, Avexa Corporation Private Limited (A.C.P.L.), was improperly availing Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) for G.S.T. payments. During the operation, it was discovered that the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (D.G.G.I.) in Hyderabad had already investigated the matter. Additionally, a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice had been issued by the D.G.G.I., proposing a penalty of approximately Rs.16 Crores under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (C.G.S.T.) Act, 2017, for the irregular availment of I.T.C.
iii. M/s. Avexa Corporation Private Limited (A.C.P.L.) in Andhra Pradesh has wrongly or illegitimately claimed Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) based on invoices despite not receiving the associated services from July 2017 to March 2022. Moreover, it is acknowledged that they transferred these irregularly claimed I.T.C. amounts to various entities without providing any services during the mentioned period. Based on the admission of A.2, it appears that they intentionally misrepresented facts in their GSTR3B returns by indicating receipt of services when, in fact, they had not received them.
iv. Explanation 2 of Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (C.G.S.T.) Act 2017 defines "suppression" as the act of not disclosing facts or information that a taxable person is obli
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat
AI
Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations lack sufficient foundation, and the accused demonstrate willingness to cooperate with investigations while being presumed innocent.
Presumption of innocence, requirement for substantial evidence before arrest, and conditions for granting anticipatory bail highlighted, emphasizing that merely political motives cannot justify unres....
The grant of police custody should be an exception and not a rule, requiring a strong case and judicial scrutiny. The court must strictly adhere to statutory provisions and consider the limitations o....
(1) Pre-arrest bail – There cannot be presumption of guilt to deprive a person of his liberty without an opportunity before Court.(2) No arrest can be made routinely on a mere allegation of commissio....
Anticipatory bail should be granted based on reasonable grounds and exceptional circumstances, and the fears of the petitioner must be rooted in objective facts.
object of bail is to secure appearance of the accused person at his trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial where called ....
Anticipatory bail in economic offences requires a careful analysis of the seriousness of allegations and potential risks to investigations, particularly when significant fraud is involved.
The court emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence for serious charges under the GST Act and the accused's right to a fair trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.