AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs.30.4 crores to it during the period December, 2023 to March, 2024 using goods-less invoices. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 19.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) followed by order dated 26.3.2024 (Annexure P-3) for cancellation of registration w.e.f. 29.2.2024 were issued. Against the order (Annexure P-3), an application for revocation of order was filed which was rejected vide order dated 30.4.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Assistant Commissioner holding that the tax payer firm has availed ITC to the tune of Rs. 30,54,15,229/- from one M/s Monit Enterprises. The statutory appeal preferred by petitioner against the order (Annexure P-4) was allowed vide order dated 8.5.2024 (Annexure P-5) by revoking the cancellation and the registration of the aforesaid firm was restored. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded to freeze the ITC ledger of the firm by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules against the alleged ITC availment amounting to Rs. 30,54,15,229/-. Against the action of the respondent, M/s Balaji Mobile Addition filed CWP-1835802924. This Court vide order date 24.9.2024 (Annexure P-6) issued an interim order directing the respondent to release the account as well as the electroni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through banking channel. Lastly, prayer for taking a lenient view in favour of petitioner has been made by extending him the concession of bail, for his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Following judgments have also been tendered and placed on record:- (i) Ganga Ram Vs. State of Punjab, (2021 (44) GSTL 5) of this Court. (ii) Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India, (2022) 1 Centax 278 (SC) of Hon'ble Supreme Court. (iii) Vishal Chauhan Vs. Haryana State GST (Intelligence Unit), Rohtak, ((2024) 21 Centax 434) of Punjab and Haryana High Court. (iv) Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India, ((2024) 20 Centax 595 (SC)). (v) Sandeep Singhal Vs. DGGSTI, ((2024) 16 Centax 443) of Rajasthan High Court. (vi) Manish Kumar Vs. Directorate General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence Zonal unit, Ludhiana, (2025TIOL-1233-HC-P&H-GST). (vii) Manoj Gupta Vs. Union of India and others, in CRM-M No.20320 of 2025 of this Court, decided on 10.07.2025. 6. While opposing the petition, detailed reply has been filed by the respondent-department reiterating that petitioner is the mastermind of the entire network i.e. for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any invoice or bill without supply of goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made thereunder leading to wrongful availment or utilisation of input tax credit or refund of tax; (c) avails input tax credit using such invoice or bill referred to in clause (b); shall be punishable-- (i) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five year and with fine. (ii) in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds two hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine; (iii) in the case of any other offence where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds one hundred lakh rupees but does not exceed two hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may ext....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. 44. This Court, in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing. xxx xxx xxx 46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the trial Court, which among others, shall also include the condition to direct the petitioner to deposit his passport. Further, such other conditions shall also be imposed by the trial Court to secure the presence of the petitioner to diligently participate in the trial. It is further directed that the petitioner be produced before the trial Court forthwith, to ensure compliance of this order." (emphasis added) It thus emerges that even in cases involving economic offences, the Court seized of the matter has to go through the gravity of the offence, the object of the Act, the attending circumstances, etc. Thus, economic offences cannot be categorized in one group and the Court should not proceed on the presumption that "Denial of Bail is the Rule and grant being the exception". 9. In the case in hand, the allegations against petitioner is that he is key-person in creating/operating firms and wrongfully availed/passed input tax credit amounting to over Rs.30 crores, thus, causing loss to the State Exchequer. These claims are yet to be proved. The fact that he has been in custody since 06.05.2025, has been ....