9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to it, the accused were issuing fake invoices without supplying underlying goods. Upon this information, a search operation at the relevant places of accused was conducted on 9.10.2024 and 10.10.2024. The three accused persons namely, Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal and Gourav Jain managed to escape from their residence because of the hindrances created by their family members and the summons dated 12.10.2024 and 14.10.2024 issued for their appearance failed to evoke their response. Later, on 16.10.2024 they were associated in the investigation and their statements were recorded under Section 70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on 16.10.2024 and 17.10.2024, wherein they admitted their engagement in issuance of invoices without supply of material. According to Sachin Singhal and Vikrant Singhal, who are directors of M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MS Singhal Trading India Pvt. Ltd., they had availed Rs 24.12 crores Input Tax Credit and passed on Input Tax Credit of Rs.23.89 crores by issuing invoices without supply of goods. Similarly, the statement of accused Gourav Jain was recorded, who admitted that he had availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit of Rs.67.47 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applied for cancellation of GST registration in respect of M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and the same was cancelled vide order dated 2.6.2023 (Annexure No.4). Learned counsel for applicants has further argued that the GST deposits in respect of these firms were made by the applicants' firms in accordance with law, and during investigation, it was informed by the applicants that the firms M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MS Singhal Trading India Pvt. Ltd. had availed Input Tax Credit of Rs.21.70 crores and Rs.2.24 crores respectively, and had passed on Input Tax Credit of Rs.21.48 crores and Rs.2.41 crores, respectively. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements of applicants recorded on 16.10.2024 and submitted that the details of suppliers and recipients of the firms were provided to the prosecution, and the allegations regarding involvement of the applicants through other fake firms is not supported with any evidence. 6. Learned counsel further argued that the transactions in respect of ineligible Input Tax Credit through the other firms cannot be linked with the applicants and the allegations of receiving commission by the applicants is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offences against the applicants are economic offences and in such cases, the concession of regular bail cannot be extended. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.9431 of 2023 and the decision of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Jha Vs. Union of India, (2024) 19 Centax 331 (All.). He prays that the application be dismissed. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that as per the prosecution, the accused-applicants are directors of M/s Siwon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MS Singhal Trading India Pvt. Ltd., who were allegedly involved in arranging fake invoices for various buyers or end-users in order to pass on fake Input Tax Credit to them, and they also arranged availment of fake Input Tax Credit in the fake firms, and in return the accused-applicants had been receiving commission in cash. A perusal of the complaint/charge sheet dated 13.12.2024 would show that the applicants were associated in investigation on 16.10.2024 and their statements under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of accusations, evidence relied upon by prosecution and the punishment likely to be imposed for the alleged offences, in the event of conviction of the accused. 14. By now, it is well settled law that the grant of bail is a rule, and denial is an exception, and this principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, and the relevant portion of the decision reads as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
