JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail in the event of his arrest in respondent of R.R.No.6 of 2019, on the file of the respondent pending investigation.) 1. The Petitioner/Accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.01.2019, for an alleged offence u/s 133(1) (i) of CGST Act, 2017, in R.R.No.6 of 2019, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is the proprietor of M/s. Maa Osiya Corporation [Formerly M/s. Osiyan Impex Co.], Hosur having GSTIN No.33AHJPN2714J1ZE is engaged in the business of trading of Aluminium profiles, hardware, glass etc. They have been availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the invoices without receipt of goods and passing on the said credit through raising of invoices/E-way bills without supply of goods. 3. Based on the Intelligence reports received by the Chennai Office of the respondent, it was found that the petitioner is engaged in the bill trading activity i.e. issue of GST invoices without supply of goods and availing of input tax credit without supply of goods in violation of the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The documentary evidence collected by the respondent and the statements recorded from various persons in this connection clearly indicated that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, [CGST Act 2017 - herein after referred as 'the Act"]. The total evasion of tax committed by the petitioner is said to be in the range of nearly 98 crores of rupees. 4. The modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is that there was issue of invoices or bills without supply of goods and services and receipt of invoices without supply of goods and services which is in total violation of the provisions of the Act, leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit. 5. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Proprietor who is involved in the manufacturing of aluminium frames and UPVC windows. This is supplied to many Companies and the petitioner is an income tax assessee and also he has paid substantial amounts as tax under vat. 5. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Proprietor who is involved in the manufacturing of aluminium frames and UPVC windows. This is supplied to many Companies and the petitioner is an income tax assessee and also he has paid substantial amounts as tax under vat. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even in the remand application filed by the respondent before the Court below, the respondent have alleged that the petitioner has availed ineligible input tax credit and thereby evaded payment of GST by creating bogus invoices. However, the entire remand application does not speak about the actual tax evasion that was committed by the petitioner. 6. The learned Senior counsel submitted that in order to attract the provisions of Section 132(1)(b) of the Act, it is not enough to merely allege that fake invoices has been utilised without supply of goods in violation of the provisions of Act and the prosecution must also prima facie produce materials to show that it has lead to a wrongful availment of input tax credit. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel submitted that intention to evade tax must be established in order to make it an offence u/s 132(1)(b) of the Act. 7. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that even though the power of arrest has been given to the Commissioner or any other Authorised Officer u/s 69 of the Act, the same cannot be used mechanically in all cases. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the maximum punishment provided for this offence is for a period of five years and the Act also makes all the offences compoundable u/s 138 of the Act and therefore the intention of the legislature is only the collection of the tax and punishment can only be taken as a last resort. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that this petitioner has co-operated during the enquiry conducted by the respondent and has also given statements and this petitioner has already suffered incarceration from 26.01.2019 onwards. 8. Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that this petitioner is the master mind behind the entire fraud that has been committed in this case. 8. Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that this petitioner is the master mind behind the entire fraud that has been committed in this case. The learned Senior counsel submitted that when this petitioner was called for enquiry, he has categorically admitted that he has utilised fake invoices of fake Companies without any movement of goods. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor in order to demonstrate the manner in which this petitioner has hoodwinked the department, showed a sample case for the month of July 2017, involving one fake Company called Sky lite Hardware Trading Company. It is seen from the case diary that the petitioner through various transactions has availed an input tax credit to the tune of Rs. 15,44,424/-, without paying a single amount as tax and causing a revenue loss to the exchequer. This is only a sample case for the month of July 2017, covering one fake Company. The learned Special Prosecutor submitted that by adopting this method, the petitioner has utilised input tax credit by using the name of nearly 15 fake Companies to the total tune of Rs.98 crores [approximately]. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the petitioner who is also actively involved in this conspiracy, absconded when he was called for enquiry and till date he is not traceable. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is a big team which is working on this entire fraudulent transactions and which has also been admitted by the petitioner at the time of enquiry and therefore the petitioner should not be granted bail since he will tamper with the evidence and interfere with the investigation. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that in this case admittedly fake invoices have been used for passing on input tax credit without actual supply of goods and receipt of such fraudulent input tax credit for the fake Companies floated by the petitioner and the other accused persons. In the light of such serious allegations, this Court should not enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. A detailed counter has been filed by the respondent giving the entire details as to the manner in which the fraudulent transactions have taken place in this case. 11. In the light of such serious allegations, this Court should not enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. A detailed counter has been filed by the respondent giving the entire details as to the manner in which the fraudulent transactions have taken place in this case. 11. This Court had an occasion to deal with a case involving an offence under the Act in Mr.Vimal Nayan & Others .Vs. The Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai-34 & Another (2019-1-L.W. (Crl.) 607) in Crl.OP Nos.30467, 30470, 3047 4, 30477, 30481, 30488 & 30490 of 2018 dated 12.02.2019. (Reported in this issue) The relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder : "11. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. It will be relevant to take note of certain provisions under the Act. As per Section 31 of CGST Act, 2017:- (1) A registered person supplying taxable goods shall, before or at the time of – (a) removal of goods for supply to the recipient, where the supply involves movement of goods: or (b) delivery of goods or making available thereof to the recipient, in any other case, issue a tax invoice showing the description, quantity and value of goods, the tax charged thereon and such other particulars as may be prescribed. As per Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, any person "issues any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax". As per Section 132 (1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, any person "avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b);" As per Section 13(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, "in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine;" Further as per Section 132 (5) of the CGST Act, 2017, the offences specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of subsection (1) and punishable under clause(i) of that sub-section shall be cognizable and non-bailable. Further as per Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, "Where the Commissioner has reasons to believe that a person has committed any offence specified in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 132 which is punishable under clause (i) or (ii) of sub-section (1), or sub-section (2) of the said section, he may, by order authorise any officer of central tax to arrest such persons". 12. The enactment in question has come into force very recently with a laudable object of one country one tax. Therefore wherever the department finds that certain provisions in the Act is misused by creating fake invoices and input tax credit is being availed without any movement of goods, the same has to be curbed and nipped in the bud to ensure that it does not grow into another mega scam having a direct impact on the economy of this nation. Since the department has collected some prima facie materials, they want to act fast before it becomes a huge racket, failing which the entire economy of this country would weaken and collapse. 13. In the considered view of this Court, in matters of this nature, the department must be given the complete independence to investigate the cases since it involves the national interest. This Court by entertaining an Anticipatory Bail Petition and by imposing certain conditions, should not tie the hands of the department in proceeding further with the investigation since what has been unearthed till now is only the tip of the iceberg and there is a long way to go for the department to find out how long this fake invoices have extended their tentacles". 14. The above observations made by this Court will squarely apply to the facts of this case also. It is true that the petitioner has attended the enquiry conducted by the respondent and has also given his statements. It is also true that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 34 days. However, a reading of the entire counter affidavit and the case diary, reveals the fact that this petitioner is involved in a huge scam of creating fake Companies, creating fake invoices and taking advantage of input tax credit based on fake invoices. It is also true that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 34 days. However, a reading of the entire counter affidavit and the case diary, reveals the fact that this petitioner is involved in a huge scam of creating fake Companies, creating fake invoices and taking advantage of input tax credit based on fake invoices. The respondent till now were able to deduct a total sum of Rs.98 crores of fraudulent input tax credit which has been passed on/received by 15 bogus Companies. In a case involving moral turpitude of this magnitude, Courts must be very slow and careful before letting out a person on bail. The reason being that such persons are capable of tampering with the evidence and hamper the further course of investigation. Law is now well settled and apart from the other considerations, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the character of the accused and the larger interest of the public/country. If these things are taken into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition shall stand dismissed.