9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of Rs.19.67 crores. The applicant was arrested on 01.12.2022 from his shop M/s Shivam Iron Store located at premises No. E-85, Ground Floor, Phase II, Maya Puri Industrial Area, New Delhi. During search, a cash amount of Rs.7 lakhs and 25 invoices of five different firms were alleged to have been recovered from the shop. Search was also carried out at the residence of the applicant at House No.A-43, 1st Floor, Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. During search of the house, cash amount of Rs.65 lakh was recovered. It is the prosecution's case that the son and the wife of the applicant failed to explain the source of the funds and accordingly, recovered cash was seized. Thereafter, on 30.11.2022, statement of the applicant was recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act, wherein he purportedly admitted that he had been running fake firms and passing on ITC on the strength of good-less invoices. The applicant was arrested on 01.12.2022 and he was produced before the Duty MM, who granted 14 days judicial custody. On 15.12.2022, applicant was produced before the court of ACMM-02, PHC, New Delhi for extension of judicial custody. Prosecution moved an application seeking further jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's case (supra) were not complied with. 4. Counsel for the applicant has argued that the report submitted by the prosecution demonstrate that the investigation in the matter already stands concluded. He has mentioned that the entire evidence is in the form of documents and as per the report submitted by the prosecution, all the documents have been seized. He has submitted that prosecution has already recorded the statement of witnesses including the transporters and therefore, nothing else remain to be done. He has mentioned that no purpose is going to be served by keeping the accused further detained in custody as investigation already stands concluded. 5. Counsel for the applicant has mentioned that there are various instances wherein, the accused were admitted to bail even though the allegations pertaining to the Input Tax Credit were of much higher amount. Counsel has also pointed out towards the guidelines issued to GST Department pertaining to the arrest of an accused. Counsel has submitted that offence under Section 132 of GST Act, entails a maximum punishment of five years. He has argued that in such like offences, granting of bail is the rule. Counsel has mentioned that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement under Section 69(1) of CGST Act is the 'reason to believe'. He has mentioned that the 'reason to believe' was duly recorded in the present matter. 8. Special Public Prosecutor has contended that statements recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act are admissible in evidence. He has conceded to the arguments of defence that unamended provision of Section 132 of CGST Act was incorporated in the remand application. He has mentioned that the said error occurred on account of inadvertent mistake of his junior colleague at the time of drafting of the application. He has mentioned that investigation in the present matter is at the initial stage. He has mentioned that during investigation, details of certain transporters were retrieved from E-way bill portal and their statements have been recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017. He has mentioned that these transporters have revealed that they have illegally sold bilties on a commission of Rs.400 to Rs.600 per bilty. He has mentioned that prior to arrest, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act on 30.11.2022. He has stated that after arrest, statement of the accused was again recorded on 14.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cused as well as transporters have been recored under Section 70 CGST Act. It has been submitted by the prosecution that in these statements, transports have revealed that they have sold bilties for a commission of Rs.400-600 per bilty. It has been mentioned that the physical verification of the premises, purportedly shown to be the offices of the fictitious firms, was carried out and the firms Amaira Enterprises and S.R. Enterprises were found non-existent. 12.Counsel for the applicant has challenged the validity of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by ACMM whereby judicial remand of accused was extended. Prosecution has argued that no revision lies against an order of remand. Sr. Standing Counsel has contended that since the accused is precluded from filing revision against the order for remand, therefore, he cannot be permitted to challenge the said order under the garb of a bail application. It has been held in number of judicial pronouncements that a remand order is an interlocutory order and a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C is not maintainable against the said order. Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision in the matter of Gautam Navlakha's case (supra) and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST department as he could not have been arrested before adjudication of liability was done by the department. In order to support this judgment, he has relied on the decision in the matter of "Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India" 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4951. He has further argued that the bail application of the applicant was wrongly dismissed by the Magistrate by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of "Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy Vs CBI" 2013 (7) SCC 439. Counsel has submitted that there is no mandate under the law to treat the economic offences as a different category of offences. In order to support his argument, he has relied on the decision in the matter of "Anil Mahajan Vs Commissioner of Customs" 2000 (2) JCC Del 302. On the other hand, prosecution has argued that the Magistrate rightly rejected the bail application by holding that accused has caused loss to the government exchequer. 15. The High Court of Delhi, while dealing with the bail application observed in the matter of Anil Mahajan Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.'s case (supra) that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. The court held that bail cannot be wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt cannot classify the cases and say that in particular classes bail may be granted but not in others. Not only in the case of economic offences but also in the case of other offences the Court will have to consider the larger interest of the public or the State. Hence only the considerations which should normally weigh with the Court in the case of other non-bailable offences should apply in the case of economic offences also. It cannot be said that bail should invariably be refused in cases involving serious economic offences." 16. In the matter of "Tarun Jain Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence DGGI (supra), High Court of Delhi dealt with various provisions of CGST Act while considering the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused. In the said matter, the High Court took into account various judgments including the one on which reliance has been placed by the prosecution. The High Court relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "P.Chidambram Vs Directorate of Enforcement" 2020(13) SCC 791 wherein it was observed as under: "Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se in offences under other special statutes dealing with economic offences like Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003. Thus, as per the scheme of the CGST Act, though the offence is of economic nature yet the punishment prescribed cannot be ignored to determine the heinousness of the offence. To conclude, in my view the offences under the Act are not grave to an extent where the custody of the accused can be held to be sine qua non." 18. Thus, no blanket ban can be put on bail merely because a person has been accused of an economic offence. In the present matter, applicant is in custody since 01.12.2022. The report submitted by the prosecution demonstrates that investigation qua the accused already stands concluded. Prosecution has already recorded the statement of the concerned persons including the transporters. The relevant documents have been collected. The fact that custodial interrogation of the accused is not warranted is evident from the fact that the prosecution never moved any application for the same. Prosecution has opposed the bail application on the ground that there is likelihood that accused would try to influence the transporters, whose statements have been rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
