Rohtak Court grants transit remand of accused to Patiala Court in GST evasion case

Parveen Jain Vs Directorate of GST Intelligence (Rohtak Court)

In this case the firms which played vital role in issuance of fake invoices are registered at New Delhi. The complainant department has not shown so far that the six firms located at Rohtak (mentioned in Para no 3 of Reply) or their proprietors have been impleaded as accused persons in the present matter. For this reason, this court is of the opinion that the cause of action to prosecute the present applicant- accused arose at New Delhi, where various firms allegedly run and managed by the applicant – accused are registered. The complainant department having not impleaded the firms at Rohtak in this case has impliedly admitted that no cause of action arose at Rohtak.

 In this manner, this court is of the opinion that this court lacks the jurisdiction to try the present case. The application in hand is hereby allowed with direction to transit the judicial custody of the accused to the concerned Ld. CMM , New Delhi. The Intelligence is hereby directed to produce the applicant-accused before the court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi within two days positively. The IO shall also be entitled to obtain custody of the applicant-accused from the District jail, Sunaria, Rohtak for the purpose of production before the concerned court. Case papers be accordingly forwarded through proper channel. A copy of this order be provided to the IO as well as the Superintendent District Jail, Sunaria, for further necessary action.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ROHTAK HIGH COURT

1. The present order shall dispose of an application under section 179 CrPC to transit the remand of the applicant- accused to the court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi.

2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that allegations leveled against him are in respect of the firms/companies registered under the CGST Act, 2017 at Delhi (Annexure-1). The judicial custody of the applicant was sought by the respondent – complainant not on the basis of any allegation pertaining to any firm/company registered within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. As such, the alleged firms/companies have neither issued nor received any alleged invoices within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Infact, all the alleged invoices have been allegedly issued or received at Delhi. In this manner, no offence appears to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. With these submissions, request has been made to allow the transit of the remand of the applicant to the Ld. CMM, New Delhi and other reliefs as prayed for.

3. In response , it has been submitted by the respondent department that the firms in which the applicant – accused has availed and from he has been passed on the ineligible input tax credit are located and registered with the CGST Department at New Delhi. However, these firms have issued only paper invoices form various firms across the countries falling at multiple jurisdictions including Rohtak. Such firms located in Rohtak are as

4. The firms of the applicant-accused had issued fake invoices to the aforementioned firms, which are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. With these submissions, a request to dismiss the application has been made.

5. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the records carefully.

6. As per the record of the case, the allegations against the applicant-accused Parveen Jain are that he issued fake invoices, i.e., the invoices without the actual movement of the goods by using various firms registered by using forged documents. These firms included M/s Radhika Traders Company, M/s Shiv Shakti Traders, M/s King Enterprises, M/s Shri Ganesh Enterprises and M/s Tirupati Sales Corporation. In response to the application in hand, the respondent department has categorically submitted that

“the firms in which the applicant-accused has availed and from where he has passed on the ineligible input tax credit are located and registered with the CGST Department at New Delhi, however, these alleged firms have issued only paper invoices to various firms across the countries falling at multiple jurisdictions including Rohtak.”

7. This shows that the firms which played vital role in issuance of fake invoices are registered at New Delhi. The complainant department has not shown so far that the six firms located at Rohtak (mentioned in Para no 3 of Reply) or their proprietors have been impleaded as accused persons in the present matter. For this reason, this court is of the opinion that the cause of action to prosecute the present applicant- accused arose at New Delhi, where various firms allegedly run and managed by the applicant – accused are registered. The complainant department having not impleaded the firms at Rohtak in this case has impliedly admitted that no cause of action arose at Rohtak.

8. In this manner, this court is of the opinion that this court lacks the jurisdiction to try the present case. The application in hand is hereby allowed with direction to transit the judicial custody of the accused to the concerned Ld. CMM , New Delhi. The Intelligence is hereby directed to produce the applicant-accused before the court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi within two days positively. The IO shall also be entitled to obtain custody of the applicant-accused from the District jail, Sunaria, Rohtak for the purpose of production before the concerned court. Case papers be accordingly forwarded through proper channel. A copy of this order be provided to the IO as well as the Superintendent District Jail, Sunaria, for further necessary action.