9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of both the accused was recorded by the complainant department on 25.02.2025 and both the accused appeared before the complainant department on the aforesaid date on receiving notices and thus, they have co-operated with the complainant department in the matter of investigation. It is further argued that firm M/s Kanvas has no concern with accused Virender Gupta. Accused Virender Gupta, is proprietor of M/s Cosmos International, which is situated within the jurisdiction of Delhi and complainant has no jurisdiction to conduct investigation with regard to the aforesaid firm which is situated beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Gurugram. It is further argued that amount of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter referred to as 'ITC') is Rs. 7,13,27,948/- and as per Section 132 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act), the amount of ITC involved in a case upto Rs.5 crore is a bailable offence. It is argued that allegation against the accused Virender gupta is that he is the beneficiary of 25% of the alleged amount and accused Rahul Dhingra received received 7% commission which is less than the limit of Rs.5 crore and aforesaid allegations of beneficiary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied or received by these firms and only invoices were prepared without actual supply of goods with intention of availing of fraudulent ITC and passing of fraudulently obtained ITC to various non-existent firms. It is further argued that arrest of accused is quite legal and all the legal formalities were complied with while arresting the accused. It is further argued that accused have caused loss to Government Exchequer and it is an economic offence and accused were arrested with great difficulty and there is flight risk of accused. It is further argued that medical ground as alleged in the bail applications cannot be taken into consideration to release the accused persons on bail. It is further argued that investigation of this case is still pending. With these submissions, request has been made for the dismissal of the bail applications of both the accused. He has also relied on certain case laws, which shall be discussed here as under. 6. I have heard the arguments raised by the learned counsels for the accused persons and learned Sr. Standing Counsel and gone through the case file very carefully. 7. The first and foremost contentions raised on behalf of accused is that their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case titled as Vikrant Singhal and another. Vs. Union of India 2025 (3) TMI 57 - Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that the sole piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution regarding involvement of accused that applicants with fake firms is the confession of the applicants recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act but the truthfulness of the same would be decided during the trial which is yet to commence. 9. Both the accused are in custody since 25.02.2025 and they have undergone custody of 25 days and they are not required for any further custodial interrogation and any recovery. Long incarceration will not serve any useful purpose when no recovery is to be effected and no further interrogation of the accused is required. In the present case, maximum sentence for the offence is upto 5 years and same is triable by the Court of Magistrate. In case titled as Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC (40), Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds; the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rout ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the complainant department has further relied upon case laws titled as Sandeep Goyal. Vs. Union of India Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1803/2020; Vinaykant Ameta. Vs. Union of India S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.18243/2021; Vinay Kumar Ameta Vs. Union of India Criminal Appeal No.60/2022; Jatinder Manro. Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence CRM-M-36714/2018; Sanjay Dhingra. Vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence CRM-M-50256/2019; Vikas Goel and another. Vs. Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Gurugram CRM-M-45649/2019 & Rakesh Arora Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-1511/2021 and facts of these case laws are also distinguishable as magnitude and complexity of crime was greater and huge amount of ITC i.e. 74 crore, 869 crore, 200 crore, 128 crore, 127 crore, 80 crore and 150 crore and issue of multiple fake firms was involved in there cases whereas in the present case ITC amount of Rs. 7,13,27,948/- is involved and accused have been stated to be beneficiary of 25% and 7% of the alleged amount. 13. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the punishment and the material available on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
