LAWS(ORI)-2022-1-69

SATINDRA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On January 11, 2022
Satindra Kumar Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

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 seeking an order of bail in 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 assailing rejection order dtd. 30/9/2021 passed in BLAPL No.389 of 2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda on the grounds described therein.

(2.) Prosecution allegation in brief is that CT and GST Enforcement Unit, Sambalpur initiated an action against the petitioner and other accused persons for having committed offences under Sec. 132(1)(b),(c)&(l) the OGST Act, 2017 punishable under Sec. 132 thereof for having facilitated issue of invoices and bills without physical supply of materials and availed ITC without accompanying goods and receipt of the same, as no information and documents could be supplied with respect to the alleged transactions, whereupon, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the learned court below on 3/9/2021.

(3.) After being satisfied with the investigation report, the petitioner was arrested in terms of Sec. 69 of OGST Act and was forwarded to the learned court below 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 revealed that such establishments were not in existence. It is further claimed that the so called proprietors of some firms were traced in Kolkata and interrogated but all were found to be individuals of no means and are daily wage earners. It is alleged that the petitioner misutilised the identity documents of said persons for the purpose of registration and in respect of remaining firms, the proprietors are not traceable and the residential addresses declared found to be fake and therefore, steps are currently being taken to trace them out to ascertain the extent of tax fraud committed.