TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... genuineness of the firm were conducted and that the said dealer had uploaded a rent agreement as proof of his address and a visit was made to the said address during inquiry, but no such firm was found functioning at the said address and that even the mobile number of the said Rakesh Kumar was not traceable. Thereafter, summons under Section 70 of the Act of 2017 were issued to Karnataka Bank Limited, Panipat regarding Bank Account No.6112000100052601 and the concerned Bank had informed that the account does not belong to M/s. Saksham Enterprises and in fact existed in the name of M/s Divine Enterprises. It was thus, prima facie found that Rakesh Kumar had got himself registered under the Act of 2017 on the basis of fake and forged documents and deceived the Government Authorities by submitting the said fake documents for utilizing input tax credit for himself and passing input tax credit to other firms/taxable persons by generating E-way bills and issuing invoices with dishonest intention to evade payment of taxes. It is alleged that in the process, an amount of Rs. 11265909/-, on account of GST, had been evaded by the accused. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s khaskhas were recovered. FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, but still name of petitioner did not figure in the ruqa of the police. Notice of motion was issued on 27.05.2020 alongwith interim directions in favour of the petitioner to join the investigation. Order dated 27.05.2020 is reproduced here as under:- "On account of outbreak of covid-19 the instant matter is being taken up through video conferencing. Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.188 dated 8.4.2020 for the offences under Section 15,18,27-A,29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom recovery of 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 kg 500 grams of opium and 199 kgs. of khaskhas was recovered. It has been further contended that the factum of his false implication is further fortified from the fact that the recovery of the aforementioned narcotic contraband was effected on the basis of secret info....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oining the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Officer and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition stands disposed of." On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner as per his own version, was not a professional Accountant. It has further been submitted that it has been found that the proprietorship firm in the name of Saksham Enterprises had been registered on the basis of fake and forged documents and even fake invoices had been issued, thus, duping Government of the amount of Rs. 11265909/-. It is further submitted that there are statements of Susheel Garg, Amit Garg and Rajesh Chopra, who have implicated the petitioner in the present case. Learned State counsel has also submitted that Rakesh Kumar has in fact stated that he had no knowledge about the said firm as he was only a labourer. It is further submitted that in fact there were several FIRs which had been registered after finding that several fake firms had been registered with the motive of getting input tax credit of GST, so as to dupe the Government and the petitioner has been made an acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.T. and others reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that it is the role and the material in the present case which the Court should consider to grant or refuse bail and not merely the fact that the petitioner is involved in other cases moreso, when the Petitioner is sought to be implicated in the other cases also on the basis of similar evidence without there being any link evidence establishing any evasion of tax by the Petitioner. This Court has heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioner has not been named in the same. It is not disputed that the amount of Rs. 11265909/- which is stated to be the amount of GST evaded, had already been deposited by Susheel Garg and Amit Garg, who are the persons who had taken the benefit of the input tax credit. The petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of the statements of Susheel Garg, Amit Garg and Rajesh Chopra under Section 161 CrPC. The relevant portion of the statement of Susheel Garg implicating the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:- "XXX----XXX--....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of purchase of original goods from our bank account of Amit Spinning Mill of HDFC Bank Account No.50200022636225, G.G. Spuntex's HDFC Bank Account No.50200006881623, Shiv Fiber Tex International Private Ltd.'s SBI Bank Account No.32219534915 through RTGS. XXX----XXX----XXX My abovementioned five firms Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 2,09,66,728 and a sum of Rs. 29,44,786/- as interest, total amount of Rs. 2,39,11,494/- had been got deposited in the GST office at Panipat on different dates." Rajesh Chopra, as per the prosecution case is the third person on the basis of whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been involved in the case. The relevant portion of the statement Rajesh Chopra under Section 161 Cr.PC. is reproduced hereinbelow:- "XXX---XXX- After the receipt of summons in December 2018, I had contacted Sandeep Sharma and confronted him that you have given me the goods in original but the invoices for the same goods have been generated through 7 Bogus Firms, in response to which he told me that "Rajesh chopra Ji, you are taking about only 7 firms to be bogus, whereas I have created many firms alike through one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to whether the petitioner can be linked with the alleged crime. With respect to the other cases, it is the vehement argument of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of same/similar allegations and even in the said cases, the petitioner would be entitled to raise the same arguments as have been raised in the present case. It is apparent from the record that in one of the cases, even anticipatory bail has been granted to the petitioner by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Relevant portion of the judgment dated 29.04.2019 passed in CRM-M8156-2019 titled as Govind Vs. State of Haryana is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.29 dated 06.01.2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, District Panipat. While granting interim bail to the petitioner, following order was passed by this Court on 22.02.2019 :- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, the FIR was registered on the complaint of Excise and Taxation Officer, Panipat against one Balvinder Singh and thereafter, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit (ITC) and on revelation of the modus operandi different FIR's numbering 23 were got registered against various firms including that of Jarnail Singh. The petitioner being accountant of the accused firm was apprehended on 10th of November 2020 on the allegations that there was fraud of 64 lacs by the firm in which the petitioner worked and which amount was subsequently got recovered from the beneficiaries". Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mukul Singla, Advocate has argued at length submitting that petitioner is behind the bars since a long time and is merely working as an accountant, preparing the account books and has no specific role in the commission of the offence. It is contended that upto five crores of GST embezzlement offences are bailable and that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner who has no specific role to play in the commission of the offence. Lastly, the counsel submitted that similarly placed co-accused have been allowed bail by the different Courts and has also placed on record orders dated 19.04.2021 and 29.06.2021 granting bail to petitioner in other cases by the Courts below. Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Add....