Orissa HC grants Bail to Chartered Accountant suspected of using and passing fake ITC valued at Rs.319.64 Cr
The Orissa High Court granted bail to a CA who’s indicted of using and passing fake (ITC) valued at (Rs.319.64) Crores. The supplicant, Amit Kumar Agarwal is a CA and is contended of exercising and passing fraudulent (ITC) of (Rs./-) that included claim and false ITC on the basis of fake checks by creating and operating (13) fictitious enterprises. It is revealed from the evidence that on the basis of confidential data and investigation conducted by the deputy commissioner of the Sales Tax and Enforcement Unit, Sambalpur, a report was made against the petitioner on the grounds that he had committed a violation of sections 132(1)(b),(c)&(l) and 132(1)(b), (c)& OGST Act.
The petitioner claimed that the act of the authority in question is clearly motivated, and lacks any real basis. In addition, the claim that he sucked off huge amounts of money through the creation and operating of fictitious companies to be totally fraudulent and unfounded. It is also without any basis. Being an accountant who is Chartered and a Chartered Accountant, he is innocent and has not been harassed in a way that is unnecessary. It is claimed that as the Chartered Accountant, he only authorized the companies alleged to be registered by relying on the documents that were provided to him. These documents are documented in the report of investigation that was submitted to Sambalpur’s CT as well as the GST Enforcement Unit, Sambalpur. The petitioner claims that he’s neither an authorized dealer nor licensed pursuant to the OGST Act as a registered individual, but was only involved in registration of the companies and was not involved in the business carried out by the companies insofar that, as an authorized Chartered Accountant has only rendered professional services in relation to the registration of the firms alleged to be involved.
The State claimed that the petitioner via an accountant who was a Chartered Accountant was well aware of the formalities, however, he did not obtain adequate authorization from the so-called 13 fake business entities when applying for registration, filing reports, and meeting other legal requirements required in the OGST Act which clearly proved his involvement in the formation and operation of these fake companies and that such a deliberate and deliberate move was purely to defraud the State, and thus, he’s individually and jointly accountable for the crime under Section 132(1)(b),(c)&(l) of the OGST Act which is punishable under Section 132(1)(i) of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the opposing party State used the evidence each one at a time while responding to the petitioner’s arguments and also referenced the numerous rulings by the Supreme Court and other High Courts and the orders that rejected the bail plea, focusing the seriousness of economic violations that make up an entire class of their own.
The one judge of Justice R.K. Pattanaik ruled that the petitioner has been ordered to be released under bail after providing a bail bond of Rs.50,00,000 and two sureties that are solvent and in similar amounts at the discretion of the judge below who is seized of the matter. The bail bond must be accompanied by conditions, like, he must not incite, threaten, or intimidate any of the witnesses who are in custody; and shall not use any method to influence or pressure towards witnesses of the prosecution to be scrutinized during the trial, and, consequently, not alter the evidence collected or in any way is not allowed to engage or participate in any similar activities or conducts; surrenders the passport of his, should there is any, in front of the court and will not be able to leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior approval of the court.