AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 597
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. DGGI/INT/14/2024-Gr I-O/o Pr ADG-DGGI-ZU-DELHI DGGI under Section 132(1)(c)(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act"). 2. The Applicant submits that he was arrested on 04.06.2025 from his residence without any prior service of Summons or Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. or Section 35 BNSS, to join the investigation. He was forced to sign the summons after his arrest. However, the Arrest Memo and the grounds of arrest were provided to him after an inordinate delay of nearly 14 hours, in violation of the principles of natural justice and due process. 3. The Applicant further submits that the grounds of arrest do not disclose any role played by the Applicant in the alleged transaction. The Applicant's arrest ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement dated 04.06.2025 without being informed about the contents of the same. Similarly, for the statement dated 13.06.2025, the Senior Intelligence Officer had taken some printed pages and the Applicant was asked to sign the documents. 7. It is further submitted that Respondent Department has no corroborating material against the Applicant. Even the Proprietors had stated that the KYC documents were obtained by one Kartik Sikka @ Sharad Sikka, and there was no iota of evidence to show any relation between the Applicant and the Proprietors. 8. Furthermore, the alleged intelligence/information which was shared by the Commissioner of Customs, Thoothukudi (formerly called Tuticorin), Tamil Nadu with the Additional Director General of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the Prosecution Complaint is filed, has nothing incriminating against the Applicant. 13. The Applicant submits that he has been in custody since 04.06.2025, i.e. for more than 65 days and the prosecution Complaint-cum-Chargesheet has already been filed and the investigation is complete. Except for the statements of the Applicant, there is nothing in the prosecution Complaint to bring home the charges against the Applicant. 14. It is submitted by the Applicant that he has a fixed place of residence and deep roots in society, eliminating any flight risk. He has no criminal antecedents and is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is submitted that the prosecution's general apprehension that he may misuse his liberty, cannot outwei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has submitted that it is a case of creation of availment and utilization of fraudulent ITC amounting to approximately Rs. 11.50 crores, through the creation of fake Firms. The accused persons, including the Applicant are alleged to be involved in forming bogus Firms using KYC details of different persons. Dummy Proprietors were created who filed GST Returns in order to receive the refund in the corresponding Bank Accounts. The accused persons are alleged to have prepared outward Invoices and e-way Bills while the goods which did not exist, were invoiced at inflated values, to maximize refund and duty drawbacks. Signatures of the dummy Proprietors were taken on blank cheque books. 18. The Applicant was arrested on 04.06.2025 at 11:30PM, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24. The fundamental principles for consideration in a Bail for the offences under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the CGST Act were explained by the Apex Court in Vineet Jain v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, as under: "The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The maximum sentence is of 5 years with fine. A charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is in custody for a period of almost 7 months. The case is triable by a Court of a Judicial Magistrate. The sentence is limited and in any case, the prosecution is based on documentary evidence. There are no antecedents. We ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apprehension of tampering, intimidating or influencing. Therefore, keeping all these aspects in perspective, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find it proper to grant the prayer made by the petitioner." 26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, the Applicant has been judicial custody since 04.06.2025 The Complaint has already been filed in the Court. The entire evidence has already been collected and is primarily be documentary. He has no criminal antecedents. There is little likelihood of tampering with the evidence or of influencing the witnesses, who are all official witnesses. Further, as observed in the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, there exist no extraordinary circumstances to deny the....