SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Ankit Bansal S/o Shri Shriniwas - Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through Directorate Of GST Intelligence, Jaipur - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4836 of 2025
Decided On : 18-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Swadeep Singh Hora, T.C. Sharma, Dinesh Bishnoi, Varuni Agarwal, Siddhant Choudhary
For the Respondents: Kinshuk Jain, Jay Upadhyay

Economic offences, especially involving large sums and serious allegations, require stringent scrutiny of the accused's conduct, including attempts to abscond and prior criminal history, to deny bail.

Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 132(10)(b)(c)(j)(l) and 67(2) - Bail application denied - Accused-petitioner alleged to have masterminded a significant tax evasion scheme involving 353 fake firms and fraudulent ITC amounting to Rs. 704 crores - Alleged illegal arrest without proper compliance with constitutional provisions. (Paras 1-2, 28-48)

(B) Economic offences - Requirement of gravity and serious implications on public finance - Conduct of accused, including attempts to abscond, as vital considerations in bail applications - Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents negatively impacting entitlement to bail. (Paras 30-44)

Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner was involved in creating fake GST firms to evade taxes, with claims of illegal arrest and suppression of prior criminal activities leading to his bail application.

Findings of Court:
The accused's conduct and the gravity of allegations warranted denial of bail, reflecting seriousness of economic offences impacting national interests.

Issues: Whether the accused's alleged illegal conduct, including attempts to abscond and the suppression of previous criminal antecedents, qualified him for bail under the CGST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that economic offences, especially involving large sums like Rs. 704 crores, necessitate serious scrutiny concerning the conduct and constitutional compliance; thus, bail could not be granted in light of the evidence.

Result: Bail application denied.

Table of Content
1. allegations of gst evasion (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defense arguments against arrest (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. prosecution's stance on bail (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. judicial rationale for denying bail (Para 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47)
5. decision on bail application (Para 48 , 49 , 50)

ORDER :

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under section 483 of BNSS for seeking regular bail in respect of FIR number DGGI/INT/ARM/5/2024–0/OADG/DGGI/JZU–JAIPUR dated 03.06.2024, registered at office of DGGI, JZU, Jaipur for offences punishable under section 132 (10)(b)(c)(j) and (l) of Central goods and services tax act 2017.

2. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant bail application are that officers of the Directorate General of GST intelligence (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘DGGI’), while conducting investigation in relation to a firm, namely M/S Om Sai Traders and Suppliers, it was indicated that the Firm was engaged in trading of grains by showing exempted supply in monthly GST returns (GSTR–3B) as well as in GSTR - 2A. By analysing the bank accounts, it was observed that transactions from different Firms mainly dealing in trade of scrap was shown in the accounts. Whereas many of such Firms were Suo motu cancelled by GST department on account of being fake/non- existent Firms. Fictitious transactions were shown to have taken place from such fake/non-existent firms. During course of investigation, as many as 19 accounts were searched by DGGI, carrying huge transaction amounting to Rs. 1800 crores in last 1–2 years and quite suspiciously there were cash transactions of around 800 crores.

3. While making further searches under Section 67 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, it was found that one of such non-existent firm, namely M/S Suraj trading company was also actively involved in such fake and sham transactions. While tracing the address of search firm, it was formed that address of one premises belonging to Shri Vivek Garg was given in the record. When statements of Shri Vivek Garg were recorded by DGGI, he informed that he had been working for Shri Rajesh Goyal and Ankit Bansal (petitioner in the instant case). On getting relevant information, on 03.05.2024, DGGI also conducted search at the premises of the accused-petitioner at Sonipat, Haryana, where so many incriminating documents were found. Even statement of wife of the accused- petitioner were recorded, who also admitted that her husband was instrumental in creating fake GST firms.

4. During further searches conducted on 31.05.2024, huge uncounted cash amount to the tune of Rs.2,41,86,000/- was found and seized by DGGI and statements of Shri Rahul Tayal, Pankaj Dayal, Ankit Rao Joshi, Gagan Tayal, Gaurav Jain and Deepak Agarwal were recorded. Cumulative analysis of all such statements was that the accused-petitioner along with one other person was the kingpin of the Gang, who had created and operated various fake firms for the sole purpose of availing and passing on fraudulent ITC to their various clients and involved in rotation of cash through the monetary transactions, ultimately in order to avail fake Input Tax Credit (hereinafter to be referred as ITC).

5. Further investigation in the matter revealed that the accused petitioner along with Shri Rajesh Goyal was involved in creation of at least 353 fake/non-existent firms with an intent to pass on fraudulent ITC and in such process, they issued fake invoices/bills without there being any actual supply of goods/services. It has been pointed out that during such process fake ITC of hundreds of crores was passed on to various beneficiaries. DGGI also succeeded in unearthing that the accused-petitioner was instrumental in creating and managing fake firms by using identity proof/pan cards belonging to some other persons, who had no knowledge with reg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top