9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the building and development of nation and state but the persons like petitioner who is white-collar criminals impede and obstruct the development of nation and state as well by creating fake and bogus firm committing forgery in well planned manner in cool calculation and dishonest design with a vulture eye on personal profit causing huge loss of public funds, affects economy of nation and state, should be dealt with different approach to send the eye opening message to such white-collar criminals of society. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI [ 2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT ] held that ' Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.' In view of the allegations made in the complaint, verified materials on record and also taking into consideration the cognizance order dated 04.06.2024 passed by the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was mentioned at Sr. No. 10 (M/s Navya Commercial Pvt. Ltd.). Based upon the application made for transit remand, the petitioner was allowed to be taken to the State of Jharkhand by the officers of Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, to be produced before the Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction at Jharkhand. 2.2 Surprisingly, on 09.04.2024, Complaint Case No.1280 of 2024 was filed with these allegations that the inadmissible irregular ITC leading to loss to Government Exchequer is now at Rs. 522.91 crores, however, keeping the figure of the petitioner s company intact at Rs.4.87 crores and based upon the same, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody vide order dated 09.04.2024. 2.3 Indeed, the petitioner is the Director in M/s Navya Commercial Pvt. Ltd. to which, show cause notice under Section 74 has already been issued as far back as on 01.06.2023 and the petitioner has also filed his reply to the said show cause notice, which is yet to be adjudicated upon and in which the alleged amount is Rs.4.87 crores. 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid action of the respondent, the petitioner has preferred Bail Petition No.318 of 2024 befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner was arrested on 08.04.2024 and after that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.04.2024 and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is further submitted that maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 132 of the GST Act is five years. In view of the above, contended to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India reported in (2023) 2 SCC 621. 4. At the very outset, Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-CGST has submitted that the cognizance against the petitioner has been taken by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court Economic Offences, Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No.1280 of 2024 vide order dated 04.06.2024 for the offences under Sections 132 (1) (i) to (iv) read with 132 (4) and (5) of the CGST Act, 2017 as well as under Sections 201 (Part-3), 204, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The certified copy of the said cognizance order has been produced before this Court, which is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths and thereafter get them cancelled by submitting letter to GST Department. 4.4 The circular as mentioned in the bail petition is not relevant because the loss was of Rs.781.39 crore to the government exchequer. The petitioner is the mastermind of creating/ operating/ managing 135 fake firms engaged in issuance of bogus GST invoices valuing approximate Rs.5122 crores without actual supply of goods for availing and passing on inadmissible/ irregular ITC to the end availers leading to loss of more than Rs.781.39 crore to the Government Exchequer. The investigation is still in process so that the amount of loss to the government exchequers is likely to increase. 5. From the very perusal for the complaint, it is found that the allegation is made against the petitioner-accused is the proprietor of Excal Enterprises and the Director of M/s Navya Commercial Private Limited. The rest of 133 business entities whose name along with GSTIN are shown in the table of the complaint, the petitioner is mastermind of creating all these fake business entities/ firms engaged in issuance of bogus GST invoices valuing approx. Rs.5122 crores without actual supply of goods for availing and passing on in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the wrongful availment or utilization of input tax credit and passing thereof which resulted in huge loss in revenue to the government. 5.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik (supra) the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Particularly in that case, there was no allegation against the accused in regard to committing forgery as is alleged against the present petitioner. The offence of forgery being punishable with life imprisonment, plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the period of three months judicial custody and conclusion of trial not likely to be concluded, cannot be accepted. 5.6 So far as the parity of co-accused, namely, Amit Gupta, who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in B.A. No. 5472 of 2024 vide order dated 18.07.2024 is concerned, the same cannot be given to the present petitioner because the role of present petitioner is altogether different to that of co-accused Amit Gupta. The petitioner, Sumit Kumar Gupta is the mastermind of creating 133 fake firms by committing forgery and fraud. 6. Even an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
