TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence; he is not named in FIR; one written complaint has been filed by the Superintendent of CGST and after investigation and based on the statement of co-accused, applicant has been arraigned as an accused. He further submitted that, in the chargesheet, there is no whisper about the involvement of the applicant. Even statement under section 169 is not filed. Without investigating with regard to alleged 8 firms, straightway based on the statement of one co-accused, who was arrested and released on regular bail, has been impleaded as accused. The said co-accused stated that he has received ID and password to operate the firms and generated tax bills through his laptop, but no any evidence is collected or annexed with the chargesheet papers. It is further submitted that, the alleged offence under CGST Act, however, upon making investigation under Section 72, FIR has been registered. The applicant has not received any show-cause notice under Sections 61 and 73 or 74 under the CGST Act. Hence, it cannot be termed that the applicant has committed any offence of forgery. Though civil remedy is available, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person, declared receipts and supply of the goods by merely issuing /receiving the tax invoices without the physical movement of the goods mentioned in GST returns. (7) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the record, it appears that conspiracy has been entered into by all the accused persons to cheat the government and thereby, made dummy firms and shown the same on GST portal and thereafter, by uploading bogus purchase-sale bills, took credit of GST input. It further appears that, bogus bills worth of 200 crore have been shown and 30 Crores of I.T.C. benefit has taken by the accused persons. (8) The applicant was handling the work of billing. It further appears that there are necessary recovery of laptop, mobile phone, Aadhar card, registration certificate of firm, have been made from co-accused. Also, in mobile phone, there was one number of foreign country and investigation of such mobile number is going on. It appears that looking to the aforesaid observations, it appears that it is a serious economic crime which is committed by all the accused persons and the same appears to be against Economy of Nation. Further, ld. advocate for the appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of E-way bill for various firms; that no goods were supplied by these fake firms; the details of Vehicle number and Lorry Receipt of the transporter was provided by Imran Diamond, Aadil, Vishal and Sultan etc. via whats App on his mobile number +919054583223; that he contacted Imran Diamond via his maternal uncle Aashikbhai Jamani who residing at Jafri Society, Shishu Nagar, Bhavnagar; that he met with Imran at Moti Bakery situated at Arshad Park, Juhanpura, Ahmedabad; that he contacted Sultan through Imran; that he didn't know complete address of Imran and Sultan; that Imran use to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as salary through Angadia/G-pay; that he used 3 Laptops for filing of GST returns, generation of E-way bill and generation of invoices; that all the financial records were maintained in Saral software and installed on the seized laptop. (11) Thus, the argument made by ld. advocate for the applicant that, based on the statement of the co-accused, applicant has been falsely arraigned as an accused is not acceptable in view of the law laid down in case of Mohammed Fasrin Vs. State (CR.MA/296/2014), wherein, the Apex Court observed that "..The confessions of a co-accused gives....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offence has been registered under the CGST Act alone. In fact, the question of initiating any proceedings under the GST Act does not even arise, as no such entity or firm does exist. (15) It is also pertinent to note that while a specific query was posed to the learned advocate for the applicant regarding how the Department under GST Act is expected to initiate proceedings against the non-existent firms, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is merely an abettor. Even if we accept the applicant's limited role as an abettor as per the argument made by learned counsel, in absence of principal accused, how abetement took place ? Here in the present case, the applicant is a mastermind on whose behest, merely using a GST portal and forging documents availed benefit of ITC without any actual transportation and thereby defrauded the government. (16) From the report filed by the investigating agency, it is revealed that from co-accused Mohammad Raza Gabhrani, three laptops, five mobile phones, two routers, and four stamps of different firms were recovered. The investigation further disclosed that total 145 fictitious firms were used, and sale-purchase bills amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al liberty, the Court has to strike balance between personal liberty and a larger interest of society. (19) So far the submission of parity is concerned, even the applicant cannot claim parity because the co-accused is released on regular bail and this is an anticipatory bail. Without proper investigation, it is impossible to unearth the large scale scam, the syndicate and to find out the modus operandi, if bail is granted at this primary stage, which would amount to premium to unethical and immoral personality. The public confidence in the system undermines, keeping in mind sensitivity of matter and if in cavalier fashion benefit of parity extended or bail granted, then not only wrong message will travel in the public but hamper the investigation and tampered with an evidence which is nothing but amounts to premium to wrongdoers. (20) In aforesaid backdrop, custodial interrogation and detail inquiry is necessary. When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. The alleged offence is in nature of white collar and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome." (23) In such circumstances, when investigation is at preliminary stage and anticipatory bail is granted, it may hamper the investigation and to collect the material in the more information, and find out the involvements of another person custodial interrogation is also necessary, therefore, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187, (ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 and (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, application does not deserve any consideration. (24) In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, reported in (2023)6 SCC 49, the right of custodial interrogation is very important right of the investigating agency to unearth the truth and which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Hence, police custody for interrogation is necessary. Here in the case on hand, complainant has lost his hard earn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out it is needless to say that order under Section 482 of the BNSS is not a passport to the commission of trial nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society. Here duped and defrauded offence is not under the GST Act, but offence of forgery under IPC/BNS is committed. Hence, argument of learned counsel for the applicant that offence punishable under Section 132 is 5 years is not acceptable while larger societal interest is adversely affected and that extent of quantum of punishment is not a ground to allow the anticipatory bail. (27) In view of the law laid down in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaoudhary Vs. Union of India, 2022 SCC Online (SC) 929, merely offence is punishable maximum upto 5 or 7 years is not a criteria to grant anticipatory bail when custodial interrogation of the accused is required. Further, when the involvement of the accused is prima facie revealed and if allegation is not levelled that to defame him or to tarnish his image, the Court has to exercise jurisdiction, but to seek anticipatory bail is not an extraordinary jurisdiction and ....