TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(b) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, D.G.G.I., Ghaziabad. The applicants are in custody since their arrest on 13.02.2025. (2) The facts in brief leading to the applications are that the Director General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Ghaziabad, Regional Unit (in short 'D.G.G.I, Ghaziabad') instituted a complaint dated 10th April, 2025 against the two accused persons, namely, Chandan Sharma and Gaurav Gupa, wherein it is alleged that an information was received that Chandan Sharma is associated with fake billing racket, who by issuing fake tax invoices for copper wires to various manufactures has been availing ineligible input tax credit and against these invoices there has been no supply of goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had further passed on the fake ITC to other beneficiary firms, and the said amount is approximately Rs. 54 crores. The details of the twelve firms with respective availed input tax credit and passed on input tax credit is contained in para 31 of the complaint. Further, the complaint contains the existence verification of fake firms, their data analysis, financial analysis and concludes that the accused have contravened various provisions of Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and further, prays for taking cognizance of above mentioned offences for the purpose of their prosecution and the punishment. A copy of the complaint/charge- sheet dated 10.04.2025 is appended as Annexure no.CA-23 with the counter affidavit. (3) The accused- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een framed, who is presently confined in judicial custody. He prays for the concession of regular bail. (6) Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Gaurav has also argued on the similar lines, who has pointed out that the complaint in question does not connect the two accused in any manner, and the allegations against the applicant- Gaurav also relate to availing/passing on fake input tax credit by using/issuing invoices of twelve firms. Learned counsel has further argued that though, the complainant had issued notices to the proprietors of these fake firms, but except Mohd. Azad, proprietor of M/s Manav Enterprises, no one associated with the investigation, and as per the statement of Mohd. Azad, one S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies and considering their submissions, this Court finds that the case of the complainant is mainly based upon the confession of the accused persons recorded in custody. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Union of India that the two accused are not at all connected with each other, though, through the common complaint, they are being prosecuted for commission of similar offences. Further, it is fairly stated by Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India that during investigation, no evidence has been collected, which would show that the applicants were actually managing the affairs of these fake firms. However, Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for Union of India stated that the inve....