9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (through VC) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivangshu Naval, Adv. (through VC) ORDER These two bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 CrPC. Facts of the case are that a letter dated 27.11.2020 was received from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division-C, Bhiwadi to the effect that income tax credit (for short, 'ITC') on the invoices issued by M/s. Veto Merchandise had been wrongly availed. Alongwith the aforementioned letter, a letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-I, State Tax, Jaipur dated 3.3.2020 was also enclosed, wherein it was stated that upon verification of M/s. Veto Merchandise, Jaipur (GSTIN- 08AA0FV2648B1Z1), the said firm was found non-existent at its principal place of business and, therefore, the invoices issued by M/s. Veto Merchandise, Jaipur (GSTIN-08AA0FV2648B1Z1) to M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. F-438, Phase-1, Ind. Area, Bhiwadi (GSTIN- 08AAJCS6595A1Z3) were also fake / bogus. The Dy. Commissioner, State Tax had also informed that no business activities were done at the business premises of M/s. Veto Merchandise and that the registration of the said firm had been cancelled and complet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions before the trial court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2021/20.2.2021. Hence, these bail applications. Mr. Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 134 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act of 2017'), the alleged offence is triable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class. He further submits that as per arrest memo (Annexure-1), the petitioners have been arrested for the offence under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 132 of the Act of 2017. As per the provisions of Section 132 of the Act of 2017, maximum sentence provided for the alleged offence is 5 years, which is reducible to 6 months. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards Section 137 of the Act of 2017 and submits that where an offence committed under this Act is a Company, every person who, at the time of commission of the offence, was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, but in the instant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of the Company. As per the case of the prosecution, he created the company M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and invested money for the petitioner Ramesh Jain in M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., whereas the petitioner Ramesh Jain was the employee in the company and getting ₹ 20,000/- per month. He further submits that petitioner Sanjeev Jain has been alleged to be the Director of M/s. Mohit Metals Pvt. Ltd, whereas the Director of the said Company is Sunil Dutta and the petitioner Sanjeev Jain was also an employee in the said company and getting ₹ 30,000/- per month. Sunil Duta is also a Director in M/s. Veto Merchandise, Hanuman Nagar, Gudia Market, Office No. 27, New Loha Mandi Road, Hotel Ka Saamne, Manchanda, Jaipur (GSTIN- 08AAOFV2648B1Z1). He further submits that notices were issued to Ms. Saroj Bala, Sunil Dutta, Akhilesh Yadav and Bimal Kumar Jain, who are Directors of the Company, but they did not appear and the petitioners who cooperated and appeared before the respondents, have been arrested and made victim of the circumstances. He further submits that Bimal Kumar Jain was arrested by Enforcement Directorate in Money Laundering case where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1422/2020) x) Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ Golu Versus Union of India (order dated 5.3.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 465/2021) xi) Atul Chopra Versus State of Rajasthan (order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 15418/2019) xii) Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal Versus Union of India (order dated 14.10.2019 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 12440/2019) On the other hand, Mr. Shivangshu Naval, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this is a case of tax evasion. He submits that M/s. Swissline had filed GSTR 3B returns upto February, 2020 and the total taxable supplies shown in GSTR 3B returns were ₹ 300.09 crore. M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. had paid tax amounting ₹ 48.87 crores through ITC and ₹ 2.20 lakhs only through cash. It had also paid cash ₹ 4.71 lakhs under RCM. The cash : ITC ratio of M/s. Swissline Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. is 0.04 : 99.96. The petitioners are not the employees but they are shareholde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re cognizable and non- bailable and the maximum sentence provided therefor is 5 years. So far as Section 137 of the Act of 2017 with regard to non initiation of any action against the Company is concerned, learned counsel submits that the matter is still under process. While filing the charge sheet, the respondent had kept their right reserved to examine the witnesses and also to adduce more documentary evidence. If additional facts emerge from investigation, supplementary charge sheet will be filed. He further submits that since Bimal Kumar Jain had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, the respondent could not examine him. Other persons are also yet to be examined. He further submits that the petitioners created bogus entities only for the purpose of selling / purchasing fake bills. He further submits that petitioner Sanjeev Jain was being paid commission of 1-1.5% on every fake bill. He further submits that culpability of the accused persons is to be seen in entirety. Learned counsel further submits that now-a-days, white collar crimes are increasing rapidly in the country. He further submits that the alleged offence committed by the petitioners is an economic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Bansal (supra), taking into consideration the length of custody of the petitioner, the maximum punishment awarded under the Act of 2017 being five years, offences being compoundable, and absence of the criminal antecedents, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the petitioner therein. In the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma (supra), taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a senior citizen and was in custody for last about 5 months; all the evidence being documentary in nature and no apprehension shown by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Veto Merchandise and a sum of ₹ 47 crore was claimed as Input Tax Credit without any movement of goods. His bail application was also dismissed on the ground that fake bills and invoices input tax credit was passed on to firms which were existing in papers. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned respective counsel and more particularly in view of the fact that the petitioners have already remained in custody for about 5 1/2 months, whereas the maximum punishment provided under the Act of 2017 is five years and also considering the fact that investigation is already complete and charge-sheet has been filed and also considering the age of petitioner Ramesh Jain and the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Also in view of the present pandemic of COVID-19 situation in the State of Rajasthan, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners (1) Sanjeev Jain S/o Ramesh Jain and (2) Ramesh Jain S/o Shri Bhimsain Jain shall be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
