Case Law Details

Case Name : CGST East Delhi Vs Sachin Mittal (Patiala House Court)
Appeal Number :
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/01/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : District Court (24)

CGST East Delhi Vs Sachin Mittal (Patiala House Court)

The fact of the matter is that accused has himself disclosed that all relevant documents/material pertaining to the alleged transactions is lying with his CA Nitin Jain who is still absconding/. The investigation in the present matter is still continuing and is at a crucial juncture as unless the CA Nitin Jain joins investigation and provides all the documentary evidence to the department for the ascertainment of the actual liability, the release of the accused herein would be unwarranted as his release would certainly impede the ongoing investigation in the form of destruction of relevant material or tampering with the evidence. Accordingly, considering the totality of circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to accused at this stage. The application is dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF ORDER /JUDGEMENT

It is submitted that accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case through arbitrary exercise of executive powers by the department. It is submitted that applicant is a proprietor of M/s Aryan Metal having office at 1/488 to 504/A-10, GT Road, Shahdara, Delhi and is interalia engaged in trading of metal including scrap and sanitary items. It is submitted that nothing incriminating was found during the search by the department and accused and his brother was forced to sign some typed statement in English and thereafter accused was arrested on 17.12.2020. It is submitted that case of the department is that accused is involved in issuance of fake invoices without actual delivery of goods and thereby availing ITC of Rs. 6,06,37,761 in M/s Aryan Metals and an amount of Rs. 5,98,93,507 in M/s Rashi Metal. However, applicant is neither the proprietor not the person incharge of Rashis Metal and he cannot be fastened with any liability qua the said firm. The accused used to purchase and sell goods legally and was regular in paying GST returns and movements of goods were proper and valid through e way bills reflecting the details of the vehicles. It is submitted that no independent investigation and verification had been conducted from sellers and buyers to verify the GST returns filed by the accused. It is submitted that no custodial interrogation of the accused has been done in jail and considering the clean antecedents and the deep rooted family ties of the accused, he be released on bail as he undertakes not to tamper with the evidence upon his release.

On behalf of department it is submitted that on specific intelligence search were conducted on 16.12.2020 at the registered address of M/s Aryan Metals the proprietor of which is accused and M/s Rashi Metals proprietor Rahul Mittal and it was found that both firms were not functioning. It is submitted that incriminating material in the form of whatsapp chats were found in the mobile phones of the accused and in tehir voluntary statement accused act opted that these firms wore involved in issuance of bogus invoices thereby availing ITC on the strength of bogus invoices of Rs. 6.06 crores in M/s Aryan Metals and Rs. 5.98 crores in M/s Rashi Metal and has passed on ITC of Rs. 6.03 crore through M/s Aryan Metals and Rs. 5.99 crores in M/s Rashi Metals. It is submitted that Nitin Jain CA used to assist the accused in carrying out this business of issuance of fake invoices and all his records are under his possession and the premises of Nitin Jain CA was found locked. Further, summons issued to him but he has not turned up and is absconding since then. It is submitted that investigation is still pending as statement of CA Nitin Jain is yet to be recorded as whatever evidence will be produce by them is required to be confronted to the accused so as to reach to the roots of the matter. It is submitted that accused himself informed that all his accounting records, sale/purchase invoices are maintained in the office of Nitin Jain CA who used to arrange lake/bogus invoices of other firms.

Heard. Perused.

The grant of bail depends upon complex of facts and circumstances in the light of golden principles laid down from time to time by the higher Courts. In Dipak Subhash Chandra Mehta Vs CBI ; (2012) 4 SCC 134 Hon’ble Apex Court held that …”the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding whey bail was being granted. particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed serious offence.

The Court granting bail has to consider, among other circumstances, the factors such as:

a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support with the charge.

In addition to the same, the Court while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non bailable offence apart from the seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from the justice and tampering with the prosecution witness, have to be noted.

The fact of the matter is that accused has himself disclosed that all relevant documents/material pertaining to the alleged transactions is lying with his CA Nitin Jain who is still absconding/. The investigation in the present matter is still continuing and is at a crucial juncture as unless the CA Nitin Jain joins investigation and provides all the documentary evidence to the department for the ascertainment of the actual liability, the release of the accused herein would be unwarranted as his release would certainly impede the ongoing investigation in the form of destruction of relevant material or tampering with the evidence. Accordingly, considering the totality of circumstances, this court is not inclined to grant bail to accused at this stage. The application is dismissed.

Copy of the order be sent to Ld. counsel for applicant through email/whatsapp.

Download Judgment/Order

More Under Goods and Services Tax

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

March 2021
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031