AMIT KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. read with Ss. 69 and 132 of OGST Act, 2017 is filed by the petitioner connection with 2 (C) CC Case No.275 of 2021 arising out of P.R. No.01 of 2021-22 dtd. 25/8/2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda challenging rejection order dtd. 30/9/2021 passed in BLAPL No.384 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on the grounds inter alia that it is not tenable in law and therefore, appropriate direction should be made for his release from judicial custody on such terms and conditions, as deemed just and proper, in the fact and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and is alleged of utilizing and passing bogus ITC of Rs.3,19,64,16,609.16 that included claim and availment of bogus ITC on the basis of fake invoices by creating and operating 13 fictitious firms. It is made to reveal from the record that on the basis of a confidential information and investigation concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and Enforcement Unit, Sambalpur, report was submitted against the petitioner for having committed offences under Ss. 132(1)(b),(c)&(l) of the OGST Act which was registered as P.R. No.01 of 2021-22 corresponding to 2(C) CC Case No.275 of 2021.

(3.) With the satisfaction being arrived at during investigation, the petitioner was arrested in terms of Sec. 69 of OGST Act and was forwarded to the court concerned on 2/9/2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. According to the opposite party State, the petitioner in collusion with others forged certain documents for obtaining GST registration in respect of 13 fictitious business entities and in course of investigation, it was ascertained that such establishments were not in existence. It is alleged that the so called proprietors of the fake firms never issued any authorization to anyone or the petitioner, who misutilised their identity documents for the purpose of registration and in respect of 10 remaining firms, the proprietors are still untraceable and the residential addresses declared found to be fake and therefore, steps are presently being taken to trace them out to ascertain the extent of tax fraud.