TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Rajasthan Goods & Service / Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act of 2017'). 2. Mr. Kapil Gupta, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been implicated in the case with the false and fabricated facts. Counsel submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is that he by actually operating certain firms which were registered in the name of some other persons, issued the fake invoices and claimed input tax credit (ITC) and ultimately made evasion of GST amounting to about Rs.26 crores. Counsel also submitted that the State GST Department after making thorough investigation in the matter, filed the complaint before the competent Magistrate without keeping any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.09.2020. F. Dev Adania @ Dev Madan Adania v. Union of India & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12371/2020) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.11.2020. G. Saurabh Jindal Vs. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14791/2022) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.12.2022 along-with connected bail application. H. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Union of India, (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3608/2021) decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.05.2021 along-with connected bail application. I. Naresh Chandra Jajra v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1914/2022) deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of serious and grave nature. The act of the accused petitioner is a dent to the economy of the State. 6. On a query put to the State Counsel, he on instructions of the Officer of the Department, has stated that the Department has already proceeded for cancellation of the dummy firms. 7. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material available on the record. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that he by actually operating 44 firms which were registered in the names of some other persons, has issued the fake invoices and claimed the input tax credit (ITC) and ultimately made evasion of GST amounting to about Rs.26 crores, though the Department after making a thorough investigation has found the substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and looking to the fact that the trial of the case has not yet started and in all there are 46 prosecution witnesses to be examined by the trial court, it can be very well presumed that the the conclusion of trial will take long time. 13. This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Jain v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4191/2024) decided on November 6, 2024 while granting bail to the accused therein for the same offence has observed in para 8 as under:- "8. The maximum punishment for the offences alleged against the accused petitioner is five years and the present accused petitioner has already suffered the custody of more than seven months as he was arrested on 16.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l appearing for the accused petitioner and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the present case and more particularly the fact that the accused petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2025 and the Department after completion of the thorough investigation submitted its report and the trial of the case has not yet started wherein 46 witnesses are to be examined, which may take considerable time and so also the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet Jain (supra) and the fact that the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any extra ordinary circumstances in the present case for rejection of bail application of the accused petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the ....