Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Praveen Jain Vs DGGI (Patiala House)
Appeal Number : File No. DGGI/INV/GST/1352/2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/03/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All High Courts
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Praveen Jain Vs DGGI (Patiala House Court) 

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATIALA HOUSE COURT

This is the second bail application moved on behalf of accused. The accused has been transited from the court of Ld. SCJM, Rohtak and all firms /companies involved in the present case are registered in Delhi. It is submitted that as per the JC application filed before Court, it is admitted by department that applicant is neither the proprietor/partner/director/Authorized signatory/shareholder of any of the alleged firm/company and no invoice has been brought on record which bear the handwriting/signature of the applicant and also no banking transactions pointing out that applicant is a beneficiary of the alleged documents. It is submitted that self incriminatory statement obtained from the applicant has been retracted by the applicant vide statement dated 23.02.2021. the only alleged incriminatory material recovered from the applicant is pendrive and laptop containing details of alleged firm/company involved in the present case and at best the applicant can be charged for abatement u/s 132 (L) of CGST Act 2017 which is bailable in nature. Applicant is not a habitual offender and he joined investigation as and when directed by department. Also applicant never attempted flee. The allegations of department regarding influencing witness is totally misconceived and false. It is also submitted that the first application to interrogate the applicant to JC was filed after 43 day of judicial custody and after dismissal of first bail application which indicate that custody interrogation is not required by department. It is submitted that by virtue of law laid down in Mohan Raikwar Vs. State of M.R • 1999 (2) MPLJ 663 the second application is maintainable. It is also submitted that the entire evident present case is based on documents and accused undertakes not to with the evidence or influence any witnesses and to join the investigatiion and when directed. It is submitted that accused has already retracted from his statement made to the department. It is submitted that accused is not a habitual offender and sole bread earner of the family and considering the change in circumstances, in view of his responsibilities, he may be released on bail. It is submitted that applicant is deep roots in the society and he may be granted bail subject to just conditions.

The bail application has been opposed by the department that investigation is at a very nascent stage and same is continuing. It is submitted that authorized person of M/s Brij Industry and M/s Singhal Wire Industry have admitted in their statements that they used to get fake invoices without actual receipts of goods from accused Praveen jain @ Sonu Jain. It is submitted that the role played by the applicant is squarely covered within the ambit of Section 132 of CGST Act. It is submitted that the statement tendered by the applicant was voluntarily without any threat, fear, force, pressure. It is submitted that applicant was involved in issuing paper invoices without actual movement of goods which resulted into wrong availment of ITC by recipient of such invoices. It is submitted that accused admitted in his statement dated 19.11.2020 that various bogus proprietorship firms have been floated by him by forging documents with PAN Card and voter card for operating a net of fake firm to receive and issue invoices without actual movement of goods to earn commission. The applicant was also involved in several other firms which were arranged by Sh. Vijay Pal in order to receipt and issue fake invoices without movement of goods to earn and also shared commission with Sh. Vijay Pal. Applicant admitted to have earned commission in a statement on 19.11.2020 and details regarding nine firms were collected from the prints out of whatsapp, laptop and pendrive. It is submitted that accused has caused a loss of Rs. 44.19 crores to the government exchequer through the aforesaid means.

Heard. Perused.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031