SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 767

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Javvaji Sarath Chandra
For the Respondent: Y L Sivakalpana Reddy(SC CUM SPL PP, CID)

Anticipatory bail may be granted when allegations lack sufficient foundation, and the accused demonstrate willingness to cooperate with investigations while being presumed innocent.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - This common order addresses multiple criminal petitions seeking anticipatory bail by various accused in connection with allegations of fraud involving Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) under The Central Goods and Services Tax (C.G.S.T.) Act, 2017 and sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court examined allegations of misrepresentation by corporate officers related to tax liabilities between 2017 and 2022. (Paras 1-2, 4-6, 8-12)

(B) Legal Standards for Anticipatory Bail - The court reiterated principles established by the Supreme Court regarding anticipatory bail, emphasizing factors such as nature of accusations, likelihood of flight, and potential tampering of evidence. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitions arise from accusations against the petitioners linked to Avexa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for fraudulent I.T.C. claims and violations of the C.G.S.T. Act, specifically involving inaccurate invoicing and misappropriation of public funds. (Paras 2-3, 16-17)

Findings of Court:
The court finds insufficient grounds for arrest, noting the petitioners’ willingness to cooperate with investigations and lack of flight risk. (Paras 54, 55)

Issues: The fundamental issues include the credibility of the allegations against the petitioners, the applicability of the relevant sections of law, and the validity of the anticipatory bail claims. (Paras 8-10, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that, considering the allegations and the petitioners' cooperation with ongoing investigations, granting anticipatory bail is justified. Emphasis was placed on the notions of innocence until proven guilty and analysis of whether arrest was a necessity. (Paras 12, 52, 55)

Result: Criminal Petitions allowed, anticipatory bail granted with conditions. (Paras 56, 57)

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top