TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve separate applications under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, during the pendency of trial in Case No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1546 of 2024- GrB respectively, under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(l) and 132(1)(i) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (In short as "CGST Act, 2017"), Department DGGI, Kanpur Regional Unit Kakadev Kanpur Nagar. The applicants are in custody since their arrest on 14.12.2024. 2. The above complaint has been filed by Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Kanpur Regional Unit through Samir Kesarwani, Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Kanpur and the allegations in brief are that an intelligence input was received against Sanjeev Kumar Dixit alias Sanjeev ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As per allegations, he was acting under the directions of Sanjeev Kumar and his statement under Section 70 CGST Act, 2017 was recorded on 13th December, 2024, wherein he stated that all his activities were carried out solely under the directions of Sanjeev Kumar and the firms were created by Sanjeev Kumar solely for the purpose of generating invoices and bills without conducting any actual business activities in most of these entities. As per the contents of the complaint, on 12th December, 2024, residential premises of Sanjeev Kumar, i.e. Flat No. 601, Grace City, Meharban Singh Ka Purwa, Kanpur Nagar was searched where rubber stamps of proprietors of multiple firms were recovered indicating the possible misuse for fraudulent transactions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2025 and 20.01.2025, respectively. Hence these applications. 4. In response to the applications for bail, opposite party filed its counter affidavit(s) dated 17.05.2025 through their learned counsel Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi, Advocate. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant- Sanjeev Kumar has argued that the complaint in all refers to the details of seven firms with their respective proprietors, but during investigation, no evidence against the applicant Sanjeev Kumar has been collected to connect him with the alleged crime. He further refers to the subject complaint to point out the proceedings of the search conducted at these firms and submitted that though the concerned persons connected with the firms were found, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has argued that according to the complaint itself, he is the accountant and has been filing returns for various firms and this alone would not be enough to implicate him in the alleged crime, particularly when the invoices either showing purchase by the firms or supplying the material to other beneficiaries do not indicate the involvement of any of the accused person. He also prays for bail. 8. The prayer is opposed by Mr. Dhananjay Awasthi and Mr. Parv Agarwal, learned Counsel representing the opposite party-Union of India, who have argued that the applicants are the masterminds in commission of crime, who were actually conducting the affairs of seven fake firms, which were utilized for ineligible Input Tax Credit of GST. Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etors, as during the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the bank accounts of these firms were not examined or verified to ascertain the authorized person(s) maintaining and operating the accounts of the seven fake firms. Further, as far as the applicants are concerned, qua them, the case of the prosecution is mainly founded upon their confession, but the truthfulness of the same would be tested during trial in the light of the other prosecution evidence. 10. Admittedly, the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and the maximum punishment provided for these offences is five years imprisonment, and after the arrest, the applicants have already undergone a period of nearly seven mo....