TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il in Case No.1057/2025, Under Sections 132(1)(b)(c) and (i) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, P.S.- CGST Ghaziabad, during pendency of his trial before the concerned court." 4. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45969 of 2025 has been filed by the applicant- Deepak Jain with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and release the applicant on bail in Case No.1057/2025, U/s 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017, Police Station: DGGI Ghaziabad Unit, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial before the court below, otherwise the applicant will suffer grave irreparable loss and injury." 5. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 261 of 2026 has been filed by the applicant- Sushant Goyal with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to release the applicant on bail in Case No.1057 of 2025, registered under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, under the jurisdiction of Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghazia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have availed fake input tax credit (ITC) of Rs. 28,16,33,878/- from their inward suppliers. Further, M/s Omtex (Prop. Shri Sushant Goel), GSTIN: 07AJOPG6374R1ZC has availed fraudulent ITC of Rs. 14,17,69,669/- from M/s WMCA Trade Mart Pvt. Ltd., M/s Hari Shankar Sharma HUF and other fake/non-existent suppliers. Out of this Rs. 26,52,42,431/- was passed on by M/s WMCA Trade Mart Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,18,27,388/- by M/s Hari Shankar Sharma HUF and remaining from other suppliers. The complaint further describes the roles of the accused, their confessional statements and the manner in which the said money was availed being fake input tax credit with the prayers that the court may take cognizance of the offences and the accused be put to trial and be punished in accordance with law. 7. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant- Hari Shankar Sharma are as under:- (A) The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. (B) A search was conducted at the house of the applicant on 30.10.2025 and a search memo was prepared after which on 31.10.2025 the investigating officer of the CGST Department recorded confessional statement of the applicant wherein it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.10.2025. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant Sushant Goyal submits as under:- (A) Arguments of learned counsels in the bail applications of the applicant- Hari Shankar Sharma and Deepak Jain are adopted. (B) Cognizance on the complaint has been taken vide order dated 24.11.2025 by the court concerned as has itself been stated in para-37 of the counter affidavit dated 09.2.2026 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and 3. (C) The judgement in the case of Ratnambar Kaushik vs. Union of India: (2023) 2 SCC 621 is being relied upon to submit that the Court while considering the prayer for bail has opined that since the investigation has concluded and charge sheet has been filed, punishment may extend to imprisonment for a term of 5 years with fine, the applicant has undergone incarceration for about 4 months and trial would take time to complete, has been granted bail. (D) The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-3 of the affidavit and is in jail since 31.10.2025. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent department of GST opposed the three bail applications vehemently and submitted as under:- (A) Read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Nittin Johari and others: MANU/SC/1246/2019, para-13, 14 and 15, Ayodhya Prasad Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: MANU/SCOR/27988/2020 and Rakesh Mittal vs.Ajay Pal Gupta alias Sonu Chaudhary and another: SLP (Crl.) No. 19708/2025, decided on 02.2.2026, para-19, have been placed before the Court. (I) While placing the judgement in the case of Rakesh Mittal (supra) it is submitted that the Apex Court cancelled the bail granted to the applicant which was initially stayed since the applicant was not released on bail in a matter which was triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that the principles of bail in heinous crimes must apply to serious economic offences also since they uproot the entire financial structure of the country and public money at the last end, is siphoned by such fraudulent acts. (J) It is submitted that the prayer for bail be rejected. 11. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants are involved in fraud by which they have illegally availed input tax credit which was a huge amount. The matter relates to economic offence. 12. The Apex Court, in Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Di....