The seriousness of the allegations and the amount involved can influence the court's decision on granting bail, considering the duration of the petitioner's custody.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for offence under Section 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) punishable under Clause L(i) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (in short 'the CGST, 2017) in File No.GEXCOM/AE/FU/87/2020-AE-CGST-DIV-PNP-COMMRTEPANCHKULA.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accounts of the firms of the petitioner was verified by GST Officers from time to time and as per the statement dated 12.02.2020, on verification of the copies of various Goods & Services Tax Returns (G.S.T.R.), Re-conciliation of Input Tax Credit Claim, nothing was found suspicious. The authorities again, searched the premises of the petitioner under Section 67 of the CGST, 2017 and the Assistant Commissioner, G.S.T. Division Gandhi Mandi, Panipat vide letter dated 14.10.2020 informed the Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad that eWay bill and transport documents were found to be in order. Later on, again surprise visit was made at the premises of the petitioner which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was in violation of Section 67(10) of the CGST, 2017 as even the procedure under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., was not followed. The Panches accompanying the searched party were not the local residents. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the summons to appear before the Superintendent (Preventive), CGST, Panipat. In pursuance to the summons, the petitioner appeared before the authorities and was threatened that he will be involved subsequently in a case. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner was recorded and he was detained under Section 69 of the Act on 25.10.2020 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(d) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST, 2017. An application for seeking remand of the petitioner was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an application for bail which was declined by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on 31.12.2020.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that in order to bring the offence under Clause (i) of Section 132(i) of the CGST, 2017, different amount of ITC were clubbed so as to bring the figure above Rs.500 lacs to attract maximum punishment and therefore, no proper procedure has been followed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has next argued that there is no fake or bogus invoices or no false claim have been set up by the petitioner as he has filed all the documents relating to the transactions from time to time with the respondent authorities as per the procedure laid down in the Rules of the CGST, 2017.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the entire case against the petitioner is not proved as no complaint was filed against the petitioner and he has been detained while exercising the powers under Section 132 of the CGST, 2017.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 18.01.2021 passed in CWP No.8268 of 2020 where the constitutional authority of Sections 69 and 132 of the CGST, 2017, is under challenge and the accused facing the prosecution under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of the CGST, 2017, has been granted the concession of bail.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while considering a bail application, his innocence till the guilt is proved, should be considered beyond a reasonable doubt and also it should be considered that a person, if denied bail, will be subject to psychological and physical deprivation of his personal life.

7. Learned senior counsel has further relied upon the order dated 28.10.2020 passed in CRM-M No.27425 of 2020 wherein in similar circumstances, the accused has been granted the concess