TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s indulging in issuing bogus invoices without supply of goods, in the name of fake firms created by him. On 20.12.2019, a team of certain officers of Anti Evasion Branch, CGST & Central Excise, Commissionerate Agra conducted a search at four different locations belonging to the applicant. 4. It is stated that during search of the residential premises of the applicant, a mobile phone alongwith a SIM card, 6 PAN cards, 5 Voter Identity Cards, 10 debit/credit cards, 8 cheque-books and several other documents were recovered. An analysis of the data contained in the aforesaid mobile phone revealed several fake tax invoices, ledgers, a list of 38 bank accounts and Form GSTR-3B etc. Analysis of the mobile data revealed communication of the applicant with other persons directing them to issue invoices, e-way bills etc. and hundreds of invoices issued in the name of various firms, were found in the mobile phone. In a laptop computer recovered from another premises of the applicant, tax calculations of various firms were there, the mention whereof was found in the mobile phone data. A person present at the location had introduced himself as Chandra Prakash Kriplani and he stated that he w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me or in the name of his wife - Jyoti Verma. The applicant had booked two flats in Anthela Project of M/s Bharat Nagar Housing, Agra and he had paid a sum of Rs. 42,25,656/- for the said flat during February 2019 to November 2019 from the third party bank accounts belonging to M/s Moon Stars Traders and M/s Kamal Trading Company. In respect of a flat booked in the name of the applicant's wife Jyoti Verma, the payments were made by M/s New India Pesticide, M/s R. S. Trading and M/s Moon Stars Traders. 10. During investigation, it has also come to light that while booking his flat in Bharat Nagar Housing, Agra, the applicant had given his mobile number as 9319709362 and it was found that four bogus firms, namely, Moon Star Traders, Arihant Corporation, JES Trading Company, R. S. Steel Trading Company are registered in GST department with the aforesaid mobile number. Rovin Sharma the proprietor of M/s R. S. Steel Company had stated in his statement recorded on 03.01.2020 that the applicant had taken his PAN card and Aadhar card etc. and that he had registered the firm. 11. As per the prosecution case, the applicant is the main master-mind behind issuance of bogus invoices wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, a copy where of has been filed alongwith the affidavit filed in support of the bail application on behalf of the applicant himself, mentions the services "Franchise Services". Another document annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application is a welcome letter / ID card dated 27.02.2009 issued by TLC Insurance (India) Pvt. Ltd., which reads thus - "We are happy to welcome you to be a part and parcel of the TLC family. Please find enclosed your TLC Membership ID Card. We are extremely confident that you will expand and promote your business to newer horizons." It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the aforesaid documents belie the applicant's claim of being engaged in the business of property dealing. 15. A copy of an affidavit dated 04.08.2021 affirmed by Chandra Prakash Kriplani has been annexed with the counter affidavit wherein he has inter-alia stated that he had signed his earlier affidavit dated 27.01.2020 under influence of the applicant's wife and because of the aforesaid affidavit, he had to suffer incarceration for one full year. It is further stated in his affidavit that the applicant's wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch invoice has been verified so as to prove that it is fake. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for the applicant claims that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is entitled to be released on bail. 20. Opposing the prayer for grant of bail, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the applicant is an economic offender and he has caused a loss of Government Revenue to the tune of more than Rs. 100 Crores by creating fake firms and by issuing bogus invoices and by wrongly claiming input tax credit. 21. The learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that from the material recovered from the premises of the applicant during the search conducted on 20.12.2019 and from the analysis of the data available on the mobile phone recovered during the search, it is established that the applicant was the master-mind behind the large scale evasion of GST by issuing fake invoices and thereby wrongly claiming Input Tax Credit and that he was in control of 126 bogus firms that had been created by him for issuing fake invoices. 22. The learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, relied upon by this Court in Chhaya Devi (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an application for grant of bail in a case under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 409 and 477-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 (2) read with Sections 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Member of Parliament and 73 others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held has follows: - "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of secur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor [AIR 1924 Cal 476] that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson [AIR 1931 All 356] wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days. " 27. In a recent decision in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 Scc OnLine SC 825, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized and reiterated the law regarding grant of bail in economic offences, as laid down in its earlier decisions, in the following words: - "66. What is left for us now to discuss are the economic offences. The question for consideration is whether it should be treated as a class of its own or otherwise. This issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, after taking note of the earlier decisions governing the fiel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. - Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40: "39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds : the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue....