Case Law Details
Hetram Vs DGGI (Gurugram Court)
This is the application for hail filed by applicant-accused Hetram in criminal complaint under section 132(1)(h) & (c) of GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act).
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is Director of M/s Rajnandini Metal Ltd. thereinafter referred as M/s Rajnandini) which is engaged in the business of purchasing scrap and melting it into metal rods. A loan of Rs.65 Crore has been availed by the company for running the business from a Nationalized Bank and in the company 250 workers are employed.
3. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case on the allegations that his company M/s Rajnandini has fraudulently availed input tax credit (ITC) to the extent of Rs.77 Crore as his supplier firms M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd., M/s Vivrak Impex Pvt. Ltd., M/s V.R.Trading and M/s Shri Ram Trading, were found to be non existent at their registered places of business. However, out of these four companies, M/s Curil Tradex Pvt. Ltd.. Vivrak Impex Pvt. Ltd. and V.R.Trading were searched by the State GST Department on 24.11.2021, 26.11.2021 and 19.11.2021 and they were found operational and in existence at their respective registered addresses. With regard to M/s Shriram Trading whose registration is alleged to have been cancelled, nothing has been brought on record as to when it became non existent. Not even a single transporter of the goods/scrap from the supplier to the premises of the company has stated that it did not transport the goods. Applicant’s company has record and photograph of each and every truck entering the factory along with toll receipts in order to avoid any pilferage or dispute. So, the goods were duly received and duly documented. Entire value of the goods along with GST in question has been paid by M/s Rajnandini to its supplier firm by proper banking channel. There is nothing on the file to suggest that applicant or his company is beneficiary of the alleged offence. Applicant’s company was also searched by the department and there is no allegation of any mismatch in the stock/goods stored or sold by M/s Rajnandini at any point of time. So, it cannot be alleged that M/s Rajnandini did not receive goods/stock from the supplier firms. The applicant has fully co-operated in the investigation and there has been no attempt to influence any witness or temper any evidence nor he is on flight risk.
4. The allegation against the applicant Is only of wrongly availing the ITC. When the applicant has paid the value of the goods along with GST by proper channel and on search by the department the companies were found present, it cannot be said that the firms were non existent. If any supplier firm has closed its business or committed any fraud the applicant-accused cannot be held liable for the same. The applicant is alleged to have committed offence under section 132(1)(b) & (c) which is punishable only with the imprisonment of 5 years which cannot be said to be a heinous crime. There is no stringent twin condition provided in the Act for grant of bail as is in the case of offences under PMLA Act, 2002 and Companies Act, 2013. The applicant is in custody since 20.5.2022 and has been interrogated only once and no departmental custody has ever been sought. He is not required for any custodial interrogation.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
