Bail granted to person accused of claiming Fake ITC & Creating Fake Firms

Dananjay Singh Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of file No.DGGI/INV/MISC/433/2021-GR-H-O/O ADG-DGGI-ZU-JAIPUR Registered At Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 132 (1) (B) (H) (I) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 24.10.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the complaint against the petitioner was filed on 22.12.2021 and cognizance against the petitioner was taken on 21.01.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per complaint, complainant does not disclose the complete investigation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per GST Act, incomplete charge-sheet cannot be filed against the petitioner. After that there is no occasion that complainant can file full charge-sheet. So, complainant also claimed the bail on the ground under Section 167(2) Cr. P. C. as a default bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per contention of the complainant that the petitioner had supplied packaging material to the seven firms which are fake. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had paid GST as per the Act. So, there is no breach of Section 132 of the GST. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that show cause notice was not given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the GST Act, appeal can be filed by depositing 10 per cent of the assessed amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the persons of the complainant had mis-behavied with Rohit Kumar and he had filed a writ before the high court for ill-treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in this case, no valid sanction has been given against the petitioner for filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the complainant had not made accused to so called seven fake firms. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the GST Act, these firms are registered. So, it cannot be said that these firms are fake. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had not claimed any input tax credit and conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs. State Of Assam reported in (2017) 15 SCC 67; (2) Ram Kumar Vs. State Of Haryana reported in (1987) 1 SCC 476; (3) State, CBI Vs. Sashi Balasubramanian reported in (2006) 13 SCC 252 62; (4) State of T. N. Vs. M. M. Rajendran (1998) 9 SCC 268; (5) Natabar Parida Vs. State Of Orrisa reported in (1975) 2 SCC 220; (6) Union Of India Vs. Thamisharasi reported in (1995) 4 SCC 190; (7) CBI Vs. Anupam J Kulkarni, 1992(2) 3 SCC 141; (8) M. Ravindran Vs. Directorate of Revenuu Intelligence reported in (2021) 2 SCC 485; (9) Ram Narayan Singh Vs. State Of Delhi reported in 1953 SCR 652 153; (10) Mohd. Iqbal Sheikh Vs. State Of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 1 SCC 722; (11) Kalmesh Chaudhary Vs. State Of Rajasthan in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16464/2019; (12) Kalmesh Chaudhary Vs. The State Of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.15/2021; (13) Pradeep Kumar Bansal Vs. U.O.I through Commissioner CGST, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12093/2020; (14) Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. U.O.I. Through Inspector (Anti Evasion) CGST in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15605/2020; (15) Hemant Kumar Singhal Vs. U.O.I, through Commissioner CGST, Alwar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8676/2020; (16) Ashwani Kumar Bagpatiya @ Golu Vs. U.O.I. through Commissioner CGST, Alwar in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8676/2020 and (17) Gaurav Kumar Aanchaliya Vs. U.O.I. in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3624/2019.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had created the fake seven firms and claimed input tax credit of Rs.16,99,89,923 (Sixteen Crores Ninety Nine lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Three). He had issued the invoices of Rs. 94,43,88,462/-(Ninety Four Crores Forty Three Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Two). Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement clearly specified that the matter of economic offences should be dealt strictly not as any other criminal offences. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that Investigating against the fake firms is still pending. Petitioner and other persons are not co-operating in the investigation. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submits that it is not a case of default bail because investigation against the petitioner has been completed and complaint has been filed against the petitioner. Learned Senior Standing Counsel also submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the default bail and looking to the gravity of offence, bail be dismissed.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Mahender Mangal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13041/2021; (2) Lalit Goyal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13042/2021; (3) Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11339/2021; (4) Rishiraj Swami Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11286/2021; (5) Anil Kumar Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10608/2021; (6) Abhishek Singal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6304/2021; (7) Ramchandra Vishnoi Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13104/2021; (8) Vinaykant Ameta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18243/2021; (9) Ashok Kumar Sihotiya Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9808/2021;(10) Mahendra Saini Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7564/2021; (11) Sumit Dutta Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5371/2021;(12) Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466; (13) Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.726/2011; (14) Ram Narain Popli Vs. CBI reported in 2003(1) SCR 119; (15) Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.1381/2019 decided on 12.09.2019; (16) P. V. Ramana Reddy Vs. Union Of India & Ors. In SLP (Crl) No.4430/2019 decided on 27.05.2019; (17) P. V. Raman Reddy Vs. Union Of India in Writ Petition No.4764/2019 and other connected cases decided on 18.04.2019 by Telegna High Court; (18) State Of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364; (19) Himani Munjal Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10350/2018; (20) Mukat Behari Sharma Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1238/2019; (21) Smt. Amal Mubarak Salim Al Reiyami Vs. Union Of India in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1870/2015 decided on 26.03.2015; (22) Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No.2086/2010 decided on 29.10.2010; (23) Bharat Raj Punj Vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods and Service Tax in S.B. Criminal Writ No.76/2019 decided on 12.03.2019; (24) Suresh Sharma Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7225/2014 decided on 26.06.2014 and (25) Syed Mohammad Zama Vs. State Of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11193/2014 decided on 05.01.2015.

6. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dananjay Singh S/o Shri Hari Sharan Singh shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.