2025 (11) TMI 1997

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accused-applicant was arrested in Complaint No. F.No. DGGI/INT/INTL/755/2025-GRN, dated 13.08.2025, District Jaipur Metro-II for the offences under Sections 132(1),(A),(F)(G)(H) & (L) CGST, 2017 punished under Sections 132(1)(I)&(IV) read with Section 132(5) CGST, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the instant case pertains to allegations of evasion of Goods and Services Tax (GST), for which the applicant has been in judicial custody for a period of approximately three and a half months, i.e., since 13.08.2025, under Sections 132 read with Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. It is contended that the chargesheet has already been filed and that recovery has also been effected from the applicant. It is furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....committed in a premeditated and well-organized manner. Investigation has revealed that approximately 13 bogus firms were created in the names of poor labourers and persons of limited financial means in order to fraudulently clear marble across India using e-way bills. 5. It is further submitted that the modus operandi of the applicant and co-accused involved procuring GST registrations in the names of such persons, facilitating clandestine removal of goods, and failing to file returns or filing them belatedly. It is alleged that one Pawan Regar, who is stated to have charged Rs.55,000 per bogus firm, actively participated in the operation. Intelligence gathered by the Research and Development team from Delhi prompted the DGGI to conduct ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 1 SCC 508; Virupakshappa Gauda Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406; State of Tamilnadu VS. R.Vasanthi Stanley reported in (2016) 1 SCC 376; Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439; State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364; Nimmagadda Prasad VS. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466; SFIO Vs. Nittin Johari (2019) reported in 9 SCC 165; Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate passed by Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No.9431/2023; Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs. CBI reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties, and the Investigating Officer ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elease of the applicant may pose a real risk of influencing or compromising further investigation. 7.5 Distinguishability of cited precedents: The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to materially different factual contexts. In the present case, the scale of fiscal fraud, the organized nature of operations, and the fact that key conspirators are absconding render those precedents distinguishable. Further, taking note of the ratio opined in Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy (supra), Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (supra), Nimmagadda Prasad (supra) and SFIO (supra), this Court is of a considerate view that "economic offences are to be dealt with iron hand, as such offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberat....