TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant - Sumit Yadav came to know about registration of fake firm, Yadav Traders, against his PAN Card No. AHFPX9874Q and the address is recorded as Ground Floor JL No. 219 Khatian No. 2275 dag no. 1835, Sahibganj Road, near Sahibganj, High School, Kharimala, Khagrabari Cooch behar West Bengal - 736101. Said Firm is got registered fallaciously against informant's PAN Card AHFPX9874Q. It has been registered illegally by some unknown miscreants. Informant has mentioned his permanent address as K-11 Gyan Sarowar Colony, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, and present address as J-41, Senior Citizen Society, Greater Noida. Thus, the FIR has been lodged. 3. As per prosecution version in FIR/Case Crime No. 203/2023, dated 04.05.2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-20, Gautam Buddh Nagar, the informant Saurabh Dwivedi is a journalist and works as an Editor of the Lallantop internet news portal and India Today Hindi Magazine. He came across two GST registrations viz. 03AUSPD7067N1Z3 and 27AUSPD7067N1ZT obtained in the State of Punjab and Maharashtra respectively w.e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted by the Investigating Officer in the aforesaid cases. Once the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the offence under GST Act where the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 (Central Goods and Services Tax Act) are applicable, he cannot be prosecuted for the same offence in the present case as it will amount to double jeopardy. 6. He further submits that for the offence under the GST Act where provisions of CGST Act are applicable, the proceedings have been drawn on the basis of money transactions between M/s Good Health Industries Private Ltd. and M/s AKS Traders, which in turn transacted to M/s YOYO Traders. 7. Elaborating his argument, he submits that it has been recorded by the Investigating Officer that he has received information from DGGI Meerut, Zonal Unit, Ghaziabad regarding prosecution of Sanjay Dhingra conducted by DGGI, Meerut under the provisions of the GST Act, 2017. The Investigating Officer reduced into writing the complaint dated 04.08.2023 filed by DGGI, Meerut in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut bearing Case No. 1942 of 2023. In the said complaint it was alleged that M/s Good Health Industries Pvt. Ltd., the Company where the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t under GST Act. This allegation has already been investigated by the GST Department. He has drawn attention of the Court to a bail order dated 03.08.2023 passed in the case of Sanjay Dhingra i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32951 of 2023 (Sanjay Dhingra v. Union of India and another). 13. Mrs. Kirti Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State submits that nucleus of the entire issue is that there is a Press Reporter. He says that his PAN Card was misused and on the basis of his PAN Card two Firms were registered. Thus, offence under the provisions of IPC stands committed. On the basis of these fake firms, a transaction is being done with the Company, of which Sanjay Dhingra is a Director. Each and every transaction is separate set, for this they have to submit separate return. Applicant has committed offence of separate nature, so GST Rule will not apply, but it will not take them out of the offence that has been committed under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 14. Following arguments have been advanced on behalf of the State to strengthen its submissions: A. She submits, insofar as involvement of the applicant in the offence is concerned, that they formed a sy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... F. It is further submitted by leaned counsel for the State that the argument with regard to applicability of the provisions of GST Act, the informant levelled allegations of misusing his Aadhaar and PAN Cards for GST registration, thus, FIR has rightly been lodged under the relevant Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. G. With regard to arguments of learned counsel for the applicant that once chargesheet has been submitted in economic offence, the person should be released, learned AAG contends that each economic offence has distinct parameter while consideration of bail, which can be summarized in three counts: (i) Gravity of Economic Offence, (ii) Impact, if the person is released on bail or the person is detained, and (iii) Interest of the Nation. It is argued that economic offence is not possible at the hands of one person and the present case is an organized crime where crores of government money has been siphoned by registration of fake firms in which all accused persons are connected in one or the other way. H. With respect to consideration of bail in offences related to GST, learned AAG has placed reliance on various judgements of the Apex Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1891 GST firms in various names were found, and in another master sheet contained in a separate folder there were details of 680 GST firms. In the said sheet, name of firms mentioned in the FIR were also found. On the pointing out of Ashwani Pandey and Yaseen Sheikh, the investigating team reached at Madhu Vihar office, where accused Deepak Murjhani, Akash Saini, Vishal Singh, Atul Sengar, Rajiv, Vineet were found and arrested along with huge amount of money and documents relating to fake GST firms. Copy of recovery memo was duly received by the accused persons putting their signatures thereon. The arrested accused persons, in their confessional statements, disclosed names of Anchit Goyal, Pradeep Goyal, Archit Goyal, Mayur alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal and Deepak Singhal. Consequently, Section 120B IPC was added. (iv) C.D. Parcha No. 11 shows supplementary statement of accused persons in judicial custody, who said to assist in recovery of incriminating articles from concerned place and persons. (v) C.D. Parcha No. 14 contains majid-statement of Yaseen Sheikh, Rajiv Jindal and Deepak Murjhani, who disclosed names of Rajiv Maheshwari and Rahul Gupta. In the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Footwear being run by one Prabhujeet Singh. (x) C.D. Parcha No. 22, dated 23.06.2023, shows arrest of Atul Gupta, Sumit Garg alias Chacha and Mannan Singhal along with recovery at two instance of various fake invoices and cars, from which documents relating to A.K. Enterprises were found. Two separate recovery memos were given to the arrested accused persons which bear their signatures. Statements of aforesaid accused persons were recorded, who revealed names of Goldi, Anchit, Anshul, Pradeep Goyal, Praveen, Banti, Puneet, Ishwar, Vikas Dabbas and Sanjay Garg, Mayur alias Mani Nagpal, Charu Nagpal, Rohit Nagpal, Deepak Singhal, Peetam, Mintu, Montu, Ashish, Nandlal, Mahesh, Gaurav Nagpal and Sahil, and admitted to have been working together in this GST fake registrations and for earning undue monetary benefit. (xi) In C.D. Parcha No. 24 (29.06.2023) the Investigating Officer found that the fake mobile no. 8800966916, which has been used in registration of GST firms with PAN Number, mentioned in the FIR, was found to have been used in four different mobile sets bearing different IMEI Numbers, therefore, the CDR/CAF report reveals that one of the IMEI in which the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused persons. (xx) In the C.D. Parcha No. 53 the Investigating Officer found the tax invoice of Gurmet Singh Batra to be fabricated. (xxi) C.D. Parcha No. 55 mentions that DGI, Ghaziabad Unit has provided list of 1192 PAN Cards and on verification from the PAN Card holders they denied knowledge of any such registration of firms. (xxii) C.D. Parcha Nos. 61 to 65 the Investigating Officer recorded statements of affected persons and victims, in whose names fake GST firms have been registered. (xxiii)C.D. Parcha No. 69 shows that IMEI Numbers of recovered mobile phones from accused persons were sent to respective companies, namely, AirTel, Jio, Vodafone Idea and on being run it was found that said mobiles with certain IMEI numbers were used in registration of a number of fake firms. They provided information that the mobile (IMEI) recovered from accused Yaseen Sheikh was used in 92 GST registration firms, from Vishal Singh and Akash Saini in 53 GST firms, from Atul Sengar in 45 GST firms, and mobile (IMEI) recovered from Deepak Murjhani was used in 139 fake GST firms. (xxiv) In C.D. Parcha No. 72 the Investigating Officer has referred th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present since 15-20 days and the name of the Company has been changed to Live Light. Thereafter, statements of employees of the Company were recorded. They stated to have never seen Sukhveer Yadav and Rajesh Yadav who are also said to be Director of M/s Good Health and they use to report to Sanjay Dhingra who is owner of the said firm. Further, the complicity of Kanika Dhingra and Mayank Dhingra came to light. (xxx) In C.D. Parcha No. 81 the I.O. recorded arrest of Ashish Allavadi along with the recovery of driving licence of accused Mannan Singhal and voter I.D. of Baldev. In his statement, Ashish stated that he used to bring payment of GST commissions and he has confessed the names of his cousin brother Amit alias Montu, Arjit, Anchit, Atul, Mannan, Baldev, Nandlal, Ajay, Ishwar, Sanjay Garg, Gaurav Singhal, Preetam alias Chacha and others in the commission of the offence. (xxxi) C.D. Parcha No. 82 shows the entry of bank account of accused persons wherein concerned GST ITC transaction was found, as such the accounts were requested to be ceased by the Bank under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. (xxxii) In C.D. Parcha No. 84 the I.O. shows arrest of accused Pravee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of arrested accused, complicity of accused Sachin, Babar, Parmeshwar and Nishant Agarwal came into light. (xxxvi) C.D. Parcha No. 107 shows the entry of bank account of accused persons wherein concerned GST ITC transaction was found, as such the accounts were requested to be ceased by the Bank under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. (xxxvii) C.D. Parcha No. 119 shows the arrest of accused Vikas Dabas and in his confessional statement he disclosed that he along with other persons, at the office of Arjit, Anchit and Pradeep Goyal, used to transfer the said GST firms bills to different places and receive commission thereof. Further, he disclosed the family of Archit and Anchit is mainly involved in this offence and all other accused are involved in different aspects of commission of crime. (xxxviii) C.D. Parcha No. 125 (09.03.2024) reveals that against the absconding accused (1) Anchit Goyal, (2) Pradeep Goyal, (3) Arjit Goyal, (4) Baldev alias Balli, (5) Rohit Nagpal proceedings of Non-Bailable Warrants, declaration under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been completed and lookout circular (LOC) has been issued as such there is less chances of arrest of the mention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....At their instance/ possession, 7 mobile phones, 1 tablet, 6 cars, cash of Rs. 1,41,000/- were recovered. Subsequently, in their confessional statement, Sanjay Dhingra along with accused have confessed their guilt in the alleged offence. Moreover, accused Sanjay Dhingra disclosed that fake GST firms were prepared by him along with Deepak Murjhani and others and it is important to point out that Kanika Dhingra who is wife of Sanjay Dhingra has stated that through M/s Radha Krishna Marketing about Rs. 16,35,00,000/- were transferred to her saving bank account. Copy of recovery memo was served upon the accused receiving their signatures thereon. (xlv) C.D. Parcha No.149 (03.05.2024) shows that mobile phones and tablet which were recovered from the daughter of Deepak Murjhani, namely, Dolsy Murjhani, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Ghaziabad for examination. (xlvi) C.D. Parcha No. 156 (13.05.2024) reveals that the data relating to fake GST firms was shared with DGGI Unit, Jaipur, Rajasthan, wherein on 30.08.2023 names of Rishabh Jain, Shubham Jindal and Tarun Jindal came to light in the present offence. The report of DGGI indicates that the computerised data ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, during investigation, were found to be non-existing and fake as they were registered by procuring fake and fabricated documents by the applicant along with other accused persons. On being asked, Ramkumar and Rajni Kumar who were found at the addresses of said firms, they stated that no such firm in the aforesaid names is being operated by them and their documents have been misused and a written complaint along with aadhaar and electricity bill were given to the Investigating Officer. 18. It has also been argued that the mobile phones which were used in the registration of firms YOYO Traders and AKS Traders were used in mobile phone having IMEI No. 862625043825695. The same mobile having the said IMEI was recovered from accused Deepak Murjani who was initially arrested. 19. During investigation it was found that M/s Good Health Pvt. Ltd. was having Directors Sukhveer Singh Yadav and Rajesh Kumar Jha. These persons could not be traced out and it was found that they were dummy directors for the purpose of committing the offence and further during investigation when the statements of employees of the company were recorded they disclosed that they have never seen the said Dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uble jeopardy is not applicable as the principle can only be applied, if the present case was for the exact and same offence under the same legal framework. To make it clear, the principle of double jeopardy can be applied only when the accused is only convicted or acquitted for the same offence in a court of law and the second prosecution is for the same offence for which the person has already been tried. To be more specific, the applicant, who has been released on bail in GST offence cannot be said to have been acquitted as being enlarged on bail which is a temporary relief from detention thus there is no question of the applicant being punished twice for the same offence as the said principle is not applicable at this stage. 26. This Court is of the opinion that law of IPC offence and GST Act are based in different laws or offence. There would be no concern with the principle of double jeopardy in the present case. The charge sheets has been submitted under the IPC offence, which are entirely different from GST offence. 27. Nowadays, money laundering has become a frequent feature and if there is evidence that the recipient attempted to conceal source of funds or participa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pal of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" is a fundamental concept in criminal law, where the criminal justice system recognizes the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. This principal emphasizes that an accused should ordinarily be granted bail unless there are compelling reasons to detain him in custody. But there are exceptions to the aforesaid principal. While, the general rule favours granting bail, there are several exceptions where courts may deny bail due to specific circumstances. These exceptions are based on factors that indicate a potential risk to society, the judicial process, or the investigation. Some points that should be kept in mind while granting bail are; the nature and gravity of the offence, likelihood of flight risk, risk of tampering with the evidence of witnesses, repeated offenders or habitual criminals, danger to society or the victim, possibility of committing another offence while on bail, interference with justice, specific statutory provisions like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court has held thus: "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 securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 40. The Apex Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 has formulated some important factors to be taken into consideration whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the relevant sections is made out and these offences have been properly investigated by the Investigating Officer after lodging of FIRs. The evidences have been collected from the GST Department also. 44. While considering an appeal against the bail cancellation order, the Apex Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [(1978) 1 SCC 118], has held that there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. Paragraph-29 of the said judgement is thus: "29. We may repeat the two paramount considerations, viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a Court of Justice. It is essential that due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail." 45. The Apex Court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and another [(2001) 4 SCC 280], has held that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind nature of ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124])". 47. In the case of State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], the Supreme Court has formulated eight points for consideration of bail application. It would be apposite to quote the relevant paragraph no. 18 o....