IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, J.
Amit Gupta - Applicant
Versus
Directorate General of Gst Intelligence - Opposite Party
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 14622 OF 2023.
Decided On : 08-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent activities in gst evasion (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. applicant’s innocence and bail argument (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 3. importance of economic offences and bail considerations (Para 14 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. discretionary nature of bail in economic offences (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. bail granted with conditions (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashutosh Tiwari and Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Parv Agarwal and Sri Lakshya Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A.
3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to admit him on bail in Case Crime No. 2415 of 2021 under Section 132 (1)(c), 132(1) (2) and Section 132 (1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 69 of CGST Act, Department DGGI, Meerut, during the pendency of trial.
4. Succinctly, prosecution case is that an intelligence input was received by the officers of DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit that M/s Progressive Alloys (India) Private Limited and M/s Brilliant Metals Private Limited located at Delhi, which are said to be engaged in trading of non-ferrous metals are availing fake credit fraudulently, on the basis of bogus invoices without supply of goods or services. It is also alleged that the firms issuing bogus invoices are either found to be non-existent or having issued bogus invoices to M/s Progressive Alloys (India) Private Limited and M/s Brilliant Metal Private Limited. During the course of investigation, it came to notice of the department that DGGI Headquarter and DQGI, Meerut Zonal Unit are investigating the same entities i.e. M/s Brilliant Metal Private Limited, M/s Progressive Alloys India Private Limited and M/s JBN Impax Private Limited though the period covered under investigation was different. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the competent authority in order to avoid any duplication, decided that investigation in respect of the aforesaid Firms being investigated by the DGGI, Hora shall be centralized to DGGI, Meerut Zonal Unit and this fact was also brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court where the accused-applicant has initiated certain legal proceedings.
5. It is said that the applicant-accused in his statement had admitted that he looks after the day-to-day affairs of both these companies. From the 'Panchnamas' drawn at the registered premises of M/s Relycare Metal Trading Private Limited, M/s State Metal Enterprises, M/s Classic Metcraft Impex and M/s Kalikaa Industries Private Limited from which all those suppliers were found to be on-existent. It is said that Amit Gupta has masterminded fraudulent availment of fake/ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 46.54 crore in his companies i.e. M/s Progressive Alloys India Limited and M/s Brilliant Metals Private Limited during the period March 2019 to January, 2021 on the basis of bogus invoices without supply of good with the mens rea to evade Input Tax Credit.
6. As clinching evidence was found against the accused-applicant, the applicant was arrested in terms of Section 132 (1) (c) of CGST Act, 2017 for offence of availment of ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 46.54 Crore on the strength of bogus invoices issued either by non-existent Firms or by entities, which have admitted to have issued bogus invoices without supply of concomitant goods.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is an innocent and peace loving citizen who has been falsely implicated and arrested by the officers of the department on 19.1.2023 from Vasant Vihar Delhi under Section 69 read with Section 132 (1)(c) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 without serving any notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. According to learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant is engaged in the bu
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation
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....
The court emphasized the requirement of reasons to believe and sound reasons for arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and the need to balance personal liberty with the seriousness of economic off....
The main legal point established is the importance of procedural compliance in arrest procedures and the need for substantiated allegations in cases of wrongful input tax credit availing.
Bail cannot be denied based solely on pending investigations of co-accused; each case must be evaluated individually, considering the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
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.