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
| 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
Vineet Jain vs. Union of India
Ashutosh Garg vs Union of India
Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India
Shekhar Prasad Mahto vs. Registrar General
A. Tajudeen Vs. Union of India
Ayub Khan vs. State of Rajasthan
State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari
State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal
Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh & Anr.
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....
Any offence under this Act may, either before or after institution of prosecution, be compounded by Commissioner on payment, by person accused of the offence, to Central Government or State Governmen....
The court established that in cases of economic offences, while the gravity of the allegations is significant, the presumption of innocence and the nature of evidence must also be considered when dec....
In economic offences, anticipatory bail must be granted sparingly, considering serious allegations and the need for effective investigation.
The severity of economic offences, the need for a different approach in bail matters, and the larger interest of the public and State in such cases influenced the court's decision.
The court established that personal liberty must be protected and that the gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.