2023 Supreme(P&H) 2680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Sanjeev Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, CGST, Gurugram – Respondent
CRM-M-19083 of 2023
Decided On : 31-08-2023
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Tushar Gautam, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate; For the Respondent
Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 132(1)(i), 132(1)(c)(e)(f) - Petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. challenged by allegations related to the accumulation of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) through bogus firms - Petitioner claims lack of connection to the accused firms and asserts that involvement was due to a coerced disclosure statement. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Bail - The court noted that co-accused had previously been granted bail, emphasizing the principle of parity in bail considerations. The investigation is complete and the petitioner’s further custody is deemed unnecessary. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is implicated in a case involving multiple fraudulent firms accumulating significant ITC by filing fake documents. He claims no association with those firms and disputes the evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner's bail is granted on the basis of his custody being unnecessary and in alignment with co-accused granted bail, subject to conditions.
Issues: The court addressed the validity of the allegations against the petitioner and the connection to the fraudulent firms.
Ratio Decidendi: The bail was granted on the grounds of the completion of the investigation, the principle of parity, and the lack of necessity for the petitioner's further custody.
Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner granted bail subject to conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for bail request (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail (Para 2) |
| 3. court's observations and reasoning (Para 3) |
| 4. legal standards for bail decisions (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. granting of bail as final order (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in FIR mentioned below :-
| Case No. | Date | Police Station | Sections |
| COMA/86 | 16.7.2022 | Sadar, Gurugram, District Gurugram | 132(1)(i) read with Section 132 (1)(c)(e)(f) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 |
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims parity with co-accused Lalit Dogra who was granted regular bail by this court on 21.3.2023 in CRM-M-5633-2023.
3. On 21.3.2023, the following order was passed :-
"Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case No.COMA/86/16.07.2022, under Sections 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(c)(e)(f) of CGST Act, 2017, registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurugram.
Reply on behalf of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Commissioner rate, Gurugram, through Rajesh Shrivastava, Superintendent, Anti Evasion, CGST, Gurugram, has been filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.
A report of officers of Anti Evasion, CGST revealed that some non-existent, bogus and non-operational firms namely M/s Barista Fashion, M/s Alexa Impecs Solutions, M/s Global Solar Solution and M/s EL Bella Export were accumulating very high amount of fraudulent Input Tax Credit (hereinafter called 'ITC'), on the basis of bogus purchase invoices from nonexistent and fraudulent firms and further showing sale invoices at lower tax rate and claiming inverted tax refund, by filing and unloading fake documents including CA certificates. It was further found that the same modus operandi was used by cartel of economic offenders in filing bogus applications for refund consisting of various fake firms.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is neither having any connection with the aforesaid firms, nor his name was found in the aforesaid report of the Department. On the basis of false disclosure statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was called by the above-said Department for further investigation into the matter. The petitioner appeared before the officers of the Department on 23.05.2022 and they took his signatures on the blank papers. The disclosure statement is alleged to have been made by the co-accused before the authorities under duress and fear. Therefore, the same cannot be said to be admissible in evidence. The petitioner did not get any money from CGST.
As per the case of the prosecution, neither any firm was found running in the name of the petitioner, nor he had ever received any amount of refund of CGST in his bank account. It has further been contended that no recovery of any amount of CGST was made from the petitioner. The name of the petitioner is neither shown in any of the documents planted by the prosecution, nor any forged or fabricated document was prepared by the petitioner in his name. Two main accused CA Sunil Mahlawat and CA Gaurav Dhir have already been granted bail on 10.10.2022 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-28562-2022 and CRM-M-29703-2022.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported as 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898, State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai reported as 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal) 690 and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and others - SLP (Crl) 5191 of 2021 - decided on 11.07.2022.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the complaint has already been filed against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, it was observed that two Chartered Accountants namely Sunil Mahlawat and Gaurav Dhir were found to be misusing their UDIN credentials and were issuing false
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
