9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the applicant and another co-accused, Jogvinder Singh, are that M/s ARJ Exim India availed fake Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) of Rs.40.66 crores on the strength of invoices issued by non-existent firms, M/s JMJ Traders and Ms. Durga Traders, It was found that the aforesaid firms had passed on fraudulent I.T.C. to a common buyer, namely, M/s Balaji Enterprises, Delhi. The amount of fraudulent I.T.C. passed on by the two non-existent firms to M/s Balaji Enterprises is Rs.57.96 lacs. In the search conducted in the registered office of M/s Balaji Enterprises, Sandeep Singhal, Proprietor of the firm stated that he has received some invoices for metal scrap from the applicant without receiving any goods. He admitted that bills from M/s Robin Traders, M/s Balaji Enterprises and other firms were sent by the applicant through whatsapp without supply of any goods and admitted his tax liability on account of availing fake I.T.C.. He voluntarily deposited Rs.3.14 crores on 17.02.2022. During further investigation, the applicant and co-accused, Jagvinder Singh, were found in one secret office at Shastri Nagar, New Delhi from where number of incriminating documents, like Adhar Cards, PAN Car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion number generated by G.S.T. department of the aforesaid firms are mentioned in the complaint itself. The firms are granted registration number as per Rule 8 & 9 of C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 after due verification of their credentials. He has disputed the Panchnama on the ground that the Panch witnesses belong to Ghaziabad, when the inspection was carried out at Delhi. He has submitted that the entire investigation was conducted by the prosecution on 17.2.2022 and 18.2.2022 leading to arrest of the applicant. The applicant was prolonged in illegal detention at the office of the DGGI. The entire investigation regarding allegedly illegal official transactions, whatsapp chats and hundreds of accounting entries was done. No demand notice for ascertaining tax claimed has been issued till date as per Section 74 C.G.S.T. Act. The offence alleged is punishable upto 5 years. The applicant is in jail since 18.2.2022. No custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The sanction for transaction accorded by the ADG, DGGI is based merely on his subjective satisfaction and not as per requirements of the Section 69(1) of the C.G.S.T. Act. The law of the Apex in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aamad Vs. State of Orida (CGST), 2021 (53) G.S.T.L. 390 (Ori.) 5. Sahil Jain Vs. Joint Commissioner, 2021 (54) G.S.T.L. 141 (P&H) 6. Paresh Nathalal Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, 2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 411 (Guj.) After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the applicant is involved in an economic offence of considerable magnitude and gravity. The department has already filed complaint against the applicant, wherein list of witnesses has been furnished. The proprietor of two firms, namely, Sri Shyam International, Delhi and M/s Balaji Enterprises have also been made witnesses in the complaint, who were also the beneficiary of the allegedly illegal conduct of the applicant. The evidence collected against the applicant has been described in the complaint. The applicant is to be tried by the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The alleged 75 non-existent firms could not be located till the filing of the complaint and if located the evidence collected from those firms could be led before the trial court. The applicant is in jail since 18.2.2022 and there is no allegation that he had any prior criminal history of any economic offen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the Bail Appln. 21/2022 Page 6 of 7 relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor; the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
