Case Law Details
Yogender Yadav Vs Union of India (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Bail granted to Chartered Accountant not being a beneficiary of illegal availment of ITC
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of M/s Yogender Yadav v Union of India [CRM-M-53014 OF 2021 dated February 15, 2022] granted relief to a Chartered Accountant and held that judicial incarceration may not be prolonged, as it would unnecessarily curtail and fetter personal liberty of the Petitioner.
Facts:
M/s Yogender Yadav (“the Petitioner”) has been alleged to commit an offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) while he was serving as a Chartered Accountant with two proprietorship concerns and became arrested on October 23, 2021. The Petitioner is alleged by the Union of India (“the Prosecution”) to facilitates fictitious statements of accounts and forged invoices of his two entities, to purportedly illegally avail the benefit , as embodied in Section 16 of the CGST Act.
The Court is of the opinion that the allegation as ascribed by the Prosecution to the Petitioner cannot be tested at this stage and only after the collection of evidence against the Petitioner, it can be concluded by the Inspector concerned to determine the validity of the Petitioner’s incrimination. Moreover, there is no tangible evidence of his being a beneficiary of the illegal availment of the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”).
Issue:
- Whether the Petitioner is alleged to facilitates statement of accounts and forged invoices in order to illegally avail the benefit of ITC as embodied under Section 16 of the CGST Act?
Held:
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in [CRM-M-53014 OF 2021 dated February 15, 2022] held as under:
- The Petitioner is suffering judicial incarceration since his arrest, as made on October 23, 2021. Therefore, his further judicial incarceration may not be prolonged, as it would unnecessarily curtail and fetter his personal liberty.
- Held that, the Petitioner is ordered to be released from judicial custody in order to fleeing him from injustice and also asked to make his personal appearance when directed unless validly exempted.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner is alleged to commit an offence constituted under Section 132(1)(b)(c) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. In pursuance to the afore offence becoming allegedly committed by the applicant, he became arrested, on 23.10.2021.
2. The petitioner was serving as a chartered accountant, with two proprietorship concerns, respectively with the name, and, style of M/s Lalji Enterprises, and, M/s Hemu Overseas. He is alleged by the prosecution to facilitate, through his drawing fictitious statements of accounts, and, also through drawing of forged invoices, of the above entities, rather both to purportedly illegally avail the benefit of the provisions, as embodied in Section 16 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Act).
3. The above two entities in term of Section 16 of the Act, are alleged to illegally avail a total sum of Rs. 18.01 crores, rather, as the statutorily embodied benefit(s) of passings off.
4. Admittedly, the bail applicant was working, as a chartered accountant with proprietorship concerns (supra). If he had purportedly not prepared above fictitious invoices, and, statements of accounts, the above offence would not have occurred. It is a matter of evidence whether the bail applicant has scribed either the invoices concerned, or the statements of accounts concerned, or has loaded them on, to the electronic devices concerned. Obviously, hence prima-facie, at this stage the above role, as ascribed by the prosecution to the bail petitioner cannot be tested, and, only after collection of evidence with respect to the afore, it can be concluded by the Inspector concerned, rather in his final report qua whether the inculpatory role as ascribed to the bail petitioner, becoming supported by the apposite thereto credible evidence, as becomes collected by him.
5. Be that as it may, and, if so, this Court cannot at this stage, determine the validity of the incriminatory role as scribed to the bail petitioner by the prosecution. Moreover, since the bail petitioner did prima-facie ably facilitate the above entities in the commission of the offences (supra). However, when at this stage though, there is no tangible evidence suggestive of his being a beneficiary of the illegal drawings, from the government treasury concerned, of monetary sums concerned, through the above purported illegal recoursing of passings off. Moreover, when even with respect of the above, the evidence is not completely collected, and, is in the stage of becoming
investigated, and, also collected.
6. If that be so, the incriminatory role as ascribed to the bail petitioner may not prima-facie be holding the most potent effect against him.
7. However, if all the above are to be investigated, and, the petitioner is suffering judicial incarceration since his arrest as made on 23.10.2021. Therefore, his further judicial incarceration may not be prolonged, as it would unnecessarily curtail, and, fetter his personal liberty.
8. Nonetheless, since irrespective of investigations, with respect to the afore being still underway, and, also evidence in respect thereof, being yet not collected by the Inspector concerned, yet given the gravity of his purported incriminatory role, he cannot be admitted to bail unless certain conditions are imposed, upon him. The imposition of conditions would ensure that he does not flee from justice, and/or, tamper with prosecution evidence, and, besides also does not influence the prosecution witnesses concerned.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has suggested, on instructions given to him, by the petitioner, that the petitioner is ready and willing, for imposition, upon him, the condition that he will give his ancestral house measuring 200 sq. yards, situated at village Multanpur, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurugram, as personal surety, before the learned trial Judge concerned.
10. The afore conditions are required to be imposed by this Court, upon the petitioner, as a pre-condition for his being admitted to bail, as they are both just, and, reasonable.
11. Consequently, subject to the above conditions being complied with by the petitioner, before the learned trial Judge concerned, the instant petition is allowed, and, the petitioner-bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody. In addition it is also made subject to his not fleeing from justice, and, his not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, his not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, besides also his appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when directed to make his personal appearance unless validly exempted.
12. Copy dasti.
*****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
