Heard Mr. B. M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G. A. – II as well as

Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019.

It has been alleged that the premises of M/s. Balaji Enterprises was inspected by the informant but it was not found and in the registration certificate the permanent address was written as House No. AJ-02, Ward No. – 15 Asama City, Sakri, Bilashpur, Chhatisgarh and for the registration of M/s. Balaji Enterprises the aforesaid address was shown as F.S. Tower, 2nd Floor, Chaibasa and the business place was taken on rent by the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner disclosed that he does not know Brajesh Prasad Tiwary the proprietor of M/s Balaji Enterprises whereas in the registration certificate the business place has been mentioned as the place which has been taken on rent by the petitioner. It has further been alleged that on perusal of the agreement, it came to light that the said office was taken on rent by the petitioner for three years from one Gurmukh Singh Khokhar and a condition was included that the rented premises would not be sublet to any other person in any situation. It has further been alleged that the petitioner had given the aforesaid office to Rakesh Kumar Garg proprietor of M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and the petitioner had deposited online fee of ₹ 100/- for registration of VAT and GST of the firm through Bank of India account held in the name of the petitioner. On verification, it was revealed that TIN No. 20941207878 and GSTIN No. 20AFGPT3422G1ZU were issued to co-accused Brajesh Prasad Tiwary proprietor of M/s. Balaji Enterprises. It has been alleged that the act of the petitioner and others accused persons had caused a loss of ₹ 1,09,56,094/-.

It has been submitted by Mr. Tripathi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that only allegation against the petitioner is that the principal accused used the address of the premises where the business of the petitioner is situated. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner does not have any connection with M/s. Balaji Enterprises. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a Cost Management Accountant and is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Kamal Associates which is run and looked after by the staffs of the petitioner having branches at different places. Learned senior counsel has referred to Sections 72 and 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and services Tax Act, 2017 and has stated that the mandate laid down in the said provisions have not been followed.

It has further been argued while referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 5501 of 2019 and WMP No. 6251 of 2019 that the power to punish and set out offences under Section 132 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can only be set in motion after it is established that an assessee has committed an offence which can be arrived at only after determination of the demand due from the assessee. Learned senior counsel has also referred to a letter dated 16.01.2019 issued by Sales Tax Department and has submitted that in the recommendation made for institution of the First Information Report the name of the petitioner did not figure. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner is not the ultimate beneficiary. It has also been stated that the petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2021.

Mr. P.A. S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has referred to a comparative chart depicted in Paragraph – 8 of the counter affidavit while highlighting the modus operandi of the petitioner in causing loss to the State exchequer. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the master mind of the entire fraudulent exercise.

Mr. Pati, further submits that the petitioner is also an accused in Chaibasa Sadar P. S. Case No. 20 of 2019 which was with respect to M/s. Tirupati Enterprises and the place of business of both M/s. Tiruptai Enterprises and M/s. Balaji Enterprises are same and which is the office of the petitioner.

It has further been stated that proceedings in terms of Sections 72 and 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were duly followed after issuing show cause notice and the final adjudication order has been passed which has been uploaded on the portal in the prescribed Form DRC – 7. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Spl.P.P has also opposed the payer for bail of the petitioner.

On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties coupled with the period of custody undergone by the petitioner which is since 19.01.2021, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa, in connection with Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2019.