9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t-accused. Sh. Satish Aggarwala, Senior PP for respondent-DGGI (through VC). ORDER: This is the application for bail filed by applicant-accused Hetram in criminal complaint under section 132(1)(b) (c) of GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act). 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is Director of M/s Rajnandini Metal Ltd. (hereinafter referred as M/s Rajnandini) which is engaged in the business of purchasing scrap and melting it into metal rods. A loan of Rs.65 Crore has been availed by the company for running the business from a Nationalized Bank and in the company 250 workers are employed. 3. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case on the allegations that his company M/s Rajnandini has fraudulently availed input tax credit (ITC) to the extent of Rs.77 Crore as his supplier firms M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vivrak Impex Pvt.Ltd., M/s V.R.Trading and M/s Shri Ram Trading, were found to be non existent at their registered places of business. However, out of these four companies, M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd., Vivrak Impex Pvt.Ltd. and V.R.Trading were searched by the State GST Department on 24.11.2021, 26.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief against coercive action against the applicant therein subject to the petitioner deposit 10% of the alleged unadjudicated liability within 10 days of his release. The applicant is also ready to deposit the amount of 10% within ten working days. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Central Goods Service Tax Delhi (East) Vs/. Sh. Nawal Kumar Ors. Crl. M.C 231/2020 decided on 4.6.2021, after noticing C.Pradeep's case (supra), dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by learned ASJ, New Delhi with regard to offence under section 132(1)(a) (b). In that case also, the allegations were of availing fake ITC of Rs.85.40 Crores without actual supply of goods. He further referred to Pawan Goel Anr. Vs. DGGI, Gurugram B.A No.458/2021 and Crl.M.A No.2101/2021 decided on 4.6.2021 to contend that in that case also the allegations were of availment of ITC to the tune of Rs.22.42 Crore without actually receiving the goods, however the anticipatory bail was allowed noticing that an amount of Rs.2.5 Crore had already been deposited with the department. Tarun Jain Vs. DGGI B.A No.3771 and Crl.M.A No.16552/2021 decided on 26.11.2021 by the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used his documents and he had nothing to do with the Curil Tradex. M/s Curil Traded was found to be non operational and bogus firm. The document of the applicant, agreement was also found to be forged. 8. M/s V.R.Trading, sole Proprietary firm of Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary has shown supply of Rs.150 Crore to M/s Rajnandini involving ITC of Rs.27.12 Crore and during visit address of the same could not be located. Thus, the applicant M/s Rajnandini has received bogus supply of taxable value of Rs.427.89 Crore involving ITC of Rs.77.02 Crore thereby violating the provisions of section 132(1) (b) (c) of CGST Act, 2017 which is punishable upto 5 years of imprisonment and the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. M/s Rajnandini is engaged in showing bogus receipt of goods from non-existent/non-operational entities and fraudulently availing benefit of ITC of such supplies on which no GST has been actually paid to the Government. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that 'Socio economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach.' He has referred to state of Bihar Another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 Supreme Court Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case is extendable to a period of 5 years and fine. There is no provision of stringent twin conditions before grant of bail as is contained in PMLA Act, 2002 and Companies Act, 2013. It is in this factual background of the case that the plea of the applicant-accused, who is in custody since 19.5.2022, for bail is to be considered. 12. In C. Pradeep Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Selam (supra), referred by learned counsel for the applicant-accused, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that indisputably assessment for the relevant period has not been completed by the Department so far. In which case, invoking section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax act, 2017 does not arise. He further submits that, even if, the alleged liability of Rs.19 Crores as is assumed by the Department is accepted, it is open for the petitioner to file appeal after the assessment order is passed; and as per the statutory stipulation, such appeal could be filed upon deposit of only 10% of the disputed liability. In that event, the deposit amount may not exceed Rs.2,00,00,000/-. (Rs.Two Crores) which the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 14.In Manoj Bansal Vs. DGGI, CRM No.2869/2021 decided by Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court on 28.9.2021 interim bail granted to an accused in a case u/s 132(1)(b) (c) of CGST, 2017 with the allegation of availing ITC of Rs.15.4 Crore without any actual moment of goods and the supplier firms non-existent, was made absolute. It was observed as under: 3. This matter has come up for hearing on 16.3.2021 when a coordinate bench of this Court had passed a detailed order vide which interim bail was granted to the petitioner. The Coordinate Bench had taken note of the argument raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner including the argument to the effect that no notice under section 73 or 74 of the GST Act had been issued to the petitioner-company and to the effect that the prosecution could only be launched after determination of tax liability and the petitioner could be made liable to pay tax with penalty only after the said pre-condition of adjudication of tax liability was fulfilled . 15. In Akhil Krishan Maggu Anr. Vs. Deputy DGGI Ors. CWP No.24195 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and so is the tax liability of the applicant. In this case the applicant-accused is in custody since 19.5.2022. His custodial interrogation is no more required. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting anything on merit, the bail application is allowed. Applicant/accused Hetram is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate, Gurugram. 19. However, this bail order is subject to the condition that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the total liability i.e. 7.2 Crore within 10 working days from today with the concerned competent authority. The applicant-accused shall continue to join the investigation and co-operate with the department. The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the trial court/Ilaqa Magistrate and shall not hamper the investigation, temper evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner. It is clarified that in case the payment of the above said 10% liability is not made, as directed above, this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled without any further order being passed in this regard and the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
