AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndar Trader was conducted on 26.12.2024 and the taxpayer was found non-existent accordingly visit note was prepared on the spot by the concerned officer and the same was forwarded by letter dated 02.01.2025 to the jurisdictional officer for initiating proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017. As per the GST portal, GSTIN of M/s Sundar Trader was cancelled with effect from 07.11.2023. GSTR-1 of M/s Sundar Trader was analysed by the department and it was found that the said taxpayer is made out for supply to taxpayer namely Jayco Engineering Company, Mahavir Iron and Steels Company, Sunshine Steel, A S Enviro Tech, Super Tool and Components, Super Agro Udyao, Megha Constructions, Sanwariya Enterprises, Sarashwati Engineering Company, Kalpana Traders. Notice was issued to all the above mentioned beneficiaries to revise the ITC availed by them against invoice/supply received from M/s Sundar Trader. 3. Inspection at the premises of M/s Sunshine Steel was conducted as the said taxpayer was the major beneficiary of Rs. 236.57 Lakhs of the ITC passed by M/s Sundar Traders. During inspection of the premises of M/s Sunshine Steel, same was found locked and therefore, to protect the interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been initiated Superintendent (AE), CGST, Ghaziabad was not the proper officer for determination of the taxation under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST, Act, 2017. It is submitted that till date there is no determination of tax evasion by the proper officer and therefore, criminal prosecution may not arise at this stage. It is further submitted that even otherwise, it is not reasonable to keep the applicant under detention pending trial. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2025 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. 5. Learned counsel for opposite parties has opposed the bail application and submitted that applicant has been found to have indulged in creation and management, issuance of GST invoices without supply of goods/services leading to fraudulent availment, utilisation and passing on of admissibility input tax credit to the tune of Rs.45.84 crore and as such, applicant has committed punishable offence under Section 132(1)(b) and Section 132(1)(C) of CGST Act, 2017 punishable under Section 132(1)(i) imprisonment of which may extend to five years and with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Shri Shahid in the respective statement have stated that applicant was the person, who have used the credential for creation and operation of fake firms. v). The details of various firms are provided in paragraph no.10 of counter affidavit. vi). It is also stated that applicant has absconded and failed to appear for recording statement despite summon and has not produced any documentary evidence in his defence. vii). Applicant has created fake firms and forged documents; Similar IP address found as common link in all related fake firms created by applicant. viii). There is loss of revenue to state exchequer. 6. In the present case, applicant is accused of creating fake firms, the same is based on Whatsapp chat message of applicant, phone details and statement of Shri Shahid, Proprietor of M/s S.S. Corporation and Shri Lave Kumar of M/s Durga Enterprises. On search, various bill of other firms were found. Similar IP address of all related firms. Use of Same PPOB for various firms. 7. It is to be seen that prosecution case primarily rests on documentary evidence, data available on GST portal, digital foot prints, mobile phone data, Whatsa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 40 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that accused cannot be in jail during trial as a punitive measure for his conduct, In this respect paragraph 21, 22 and 23 of Sanjay Chandra (Supra) is quoted herein below:- 21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, necessity is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minal) No 20996 of 2025 (Atul Mehra Vs. Union of India) by order dated 12.1.2026, Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the accused under Section 132(i) of GST Act, 2017 and Section 20(xv) of IGST Act, 2017 (who was under detention for eight months) has observed as under:- 4. We do not undermine the gravity of the alleged offence. However, at the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 8 months. The Trial Court is yet to commence. Charge is yet to be framed. Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not conclude within next one year. The offences are triable by Magistrate. The maximum punishment that the trial court may be in a position to impose upon the petitioner if held guilty would be upto 5 years. 15. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No 2269 of 2025 (Vineet Jain Vs. Union of India) (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No 4349 of 2025) decided on 28.4.2025 while grating bail to accused Clauses (c), (f) and (h) of Section 132(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has observed as under:- The offences alleged against the appellant are under Clauses (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offence), Meerut. It has not been shown by opposite party that charge has been framed against applicant. Even if the trial commences in near future, it would not conclude within next one year. Applicant has no previous criminal history. 18. In Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, Hon'ble Supreme Court has recognised the principle that Bail is a Rule and jail is exception "52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222] further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It i....