TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ietor of M/s Aashi Steel Industries. Both these firms are engaged in trading of metal scrap, including iron and steal. The accounting of both these firms was handled by petitioner No. 2. On receipt of information regarding fraudulent availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the tune of Rs.12.31 Crores by M/s Aar Dee Enterprises Rs. 0.69 Crores by M/s Ashish Steel Industries, investigation had been initiated by the respondent and it was noticed that the petitioners in conspiracy with their associate Deepanshu Srivastav had created 41 fake entities showing purchases from several fictitious firms. Majority of the purchases were shown to be made from the suppliers located outside the State of Punjab. Invoices were got issued from bogus firms operated by them and inadmissible ITC to the tune of Rs.8.63 Crores had been availed and utilized through 37 fake firms controlled by Deepanshu Srivastav. Their brokers arranged invoices from bogus firms and supplied goods from local scrap traders without bills. Several suppliers of these firms were found to be non-existent or found to have obtained registrations by means of fraud or wilful mis-statements. The petitioners were arreste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2784 of 2024, decided on 28.06.2024 (v) Deepak Sharma vs. State of Punjab, 2024 NCPHHC 104729 (vi) Parteek Das Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2024 NCPHHC 46670 (vii) Amit Bansal vs. State of Haryana, 2024 NCPHHC 19173 (viii) Tejpal Singh vs. Director General of G.S.T. Intelligence, 2024 (83) GSTL 247 (ix) Sunil Mahlawat vs. Central Goods and Services Tax, 2023 (68) GSTL 31 (x) Shamim Akhtar vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence, 2023 NCPHHC 66070 (xi) Vineet Jain vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2025, decided on 28.04.2025. 5. Respondent No. 1 has filed reply. It is vehemently argued by learned senior standing counsel for the respondent that the petitioners in connivance with each other have evaded tax liability of huge amount of money. They have caused hefty loss to the Government Exchequer by incorporating fake firms and passing fake ITC. Their statements to this effect have also been recorded and there is sufficient evidence to show their actual involvement in the crime. There are chances of their influencing beneficiaries and other accomplices involved in making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing grant of bail has been discussed in several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will be apposite to refer to some of them. Reference can firstly be made to Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018)3 SCC 22, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the law of bail as follows: "2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." 11. Reference must also be made to P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that even economic offences would fall under the category of 'grave offence' and while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court has to be sensitive to the nature of the allegations made against the accused as well as the term of sentence i.e. prescribed for the offence that the accused is alleged to have committed. It was also observed that the reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses as well as character, behavior and standing of the accused and the circumstances that are peculiar to the accused and the larger interest of the public should also be taken into consideration. 12. Reference should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 14. Now, let us refer to the citations relied upon by the petitioners in support of their prayer for grant of bail. In Ratnambar Kaushik's case (supra), the High Court had dismissed an application filed by the accused for grant of regular bail in the proceedings for the offences alleged against him under Sections 132(1) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act. While observing that the alleged evasion of tax by the accused was to the extent as provided under Section 132(1)(i) and the punishment provided was imprisonment which might extend to 05 years and fine, the fact that the accused had already undergone incarceration for 04 months and completion of trial was likely to take time and further that the evidence to be tendered was of documentary nature, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed an order for release of the accused on bail. In Ashutosh Garg's case (supra), the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur had dismissed the prayer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. As per the allegations, the petitioners in connivance with each other and one Deepanshu Srivastav was involved in the business of fake invoices and bills by creating several fake and bogus firms with an intent to and thereby causing loss to the Government Exchequer through fraudulently GST Input Tax Credit claims. Trial has commenced but will take considerable time to conclude. The petitioners are in custody since 15.05.2025. There is nothing on record to justify further detention of the petitioners in prison. The evidence to be adduced by the respondent would be essentially documentary and electronic, which will be through official witnesses and as such, there can be no apprehension of the petitioners' tampering with evidence, intimidating or influencing the witnesses. The subject offences are punishable for maximum punishment upto 05 years. It appears justified to strike a fine balance between the need for further detention of the petitioners when no custodial interrogation has been claimed at all by the respondent No. 1. 18. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be released o....