2025 (3) TMI 1442 - DSC - GST

Bail denied for accused in Rs. 59 crore GST fraud case involving fake copper scrap invoices and fraudulent ITC claims

DSC Meerut dismissed bail application of accused charged under CGST Act for fraudulent ITC claims worth Rs. 59,00,98,178 through fake copper scrap ... Seeking grant of bail - availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently - issuance of fake tax invoices of Copper Scrap to various manufacturer - HELD THAT:- The intention of the accused is of having transactions without actual supply of goods, for claiming input tax credit (ITC) and for the aforesaid purpose fake invoices and bills were prepared. Thus the applicant/accused Chandan Sharma appears to be the mastermind in defrauding the Government exchequer by availing and utilizing ineligible ITC of GST without any concomitant supply of goods and also by creating and operating firms which are not owned by him. The offence in the present is affecting the public interest at large - The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. The present case is a grave economic offence. The total GST evasion has so far workout amounts to Rs. 59,00,98,178/-. The investigation is under progress. The applicant if released on bail will definitely try to destroy the evidence and influence the witnesses and there is his high flight risk considering his role. Considering these facts, as well as gravity of the offence, it would not be proper to enlarge him on bail at this stage. The bail application, preferred by the applicant is liable to be rejected at this stage. Conclusion - i) Chandan Sharma is the mastermind behind the fraudulent operation of multiple firms, leading to significant ITC fraud. ii) The procedural requirements under Section 69 of the CGST Act were duly followed in the arrest of Chandan Sharma. First regular bail application of Chandan Sharma son of Shri Bhramdutt sharma, u/s 132 (1) (c), 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (i) of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 D.G.G.I, Ghaziabad, Meerut Commissionerate, is hereby dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the applicant, Chandan Sharma, is the mastermind behind the operation of multiple firms involved in issuing fake tax invoices and availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) fraudulently under the CGST Act, 2017.Whether the arrest of Chandan Sharma was conducted in compliance with the provisions of the CGST Act, particularly Section 69, and if the procedural safeguards were adhered to.Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the nature of the alleged offenses, the evidence presented, and the ongoing investigation.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Mastermind Behind Fake Billing RacketRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, which deal with the issuance of invoices without the supply of goods/services and fraudulent availing of ITC.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that Chandan Sharma admitted to managing and controlling ten firms that were involved in issuing fake invoices and availing ITC without actual transactions of goods. The Court considered the statements recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the investigation findings.Key Evidence and Findings: The evidence included statements from Chandan Sharma, records from searches conducted at multiple locations, and analysis of GSTR-1M filings. The firms were found non-existent at their registered addresses, and substantial ITC was fraudulently availed.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the provisions of the CGST Act, determining that the offenses were cognizable and non-bailable due to the scale of the fraud, exceeding Rs. 5 Crores.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense argued that the applicant was falsely implicated and that the statements were coerced. The Court found these arguments unconvincing, given the corroborated evidence and admissions.Conclusions: The Court concluded that Chandan Sharma was indeed the mastermind behind the fraudulent activities, managing and controlling the implicated firms.2. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards in ArrestRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69 of the CGST Act requires that reasons for arrest be recorded, and procedural safeguards be followed.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the Additional Director General had recorded specific reasons for the arrest, complying with the legal mandate.Key Evidence and Findings: The arrest was based on the satisfaction of the competent authority, with reasons documented as per the requirements of the CGST Act.Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that procedural safeguards were adhered to, and the arrest was justified under the circumstances.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense's claim of non-compliance with procedural requirements was dismissed, as the Court found the arrest process to be legally sound.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the arrest was conducted in accordance with the law, with all necessary procedures followed.3. Consideration for Grant of BailRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the nature of economic offenses and the principles established in cases like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, emphasizing the seriousness of economic crimes.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court highlighted the gravity of the offense, the potential for tampering with evidence, and the ongoing investigation as factors against granting bail.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the substantial amount of ITC fraudulently availed and the risk of the applicant influencing witnesses or destroying evidence.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles for denying bail in economic offenses, considering the public interest and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The defense's reliance on precedents for bail was deemed insufficient, as the Court emphasized the need for a case-by-case analysis.Conclusions: The Court denied bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the potential impact on the investigation.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that Chandan Sharma was the mastermind behind the fraudulent operation of multiple firms, leading to significant ITC fraud.The procedural requirements under Section 69 of the CGST Act were duly followed in the arrest of Chandan Sharma.The Court emphasized that economic offenses require a different approach in bail considerations, highlighting the potential threat to the financial health of the country.The bail application was dismissed, with the Court prioritizing the integrity of the investigation and the public interest over the applicant's release.