Case Law Details

Case Name : Abhishek Singhal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Appeal Number : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6304/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/05/2021
Related Assessment Year :

Abhishek Singhal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)

This bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Department while notices were issued to him, secondly, even after filing of complaint before the learned Trial court, he remained absconded for about one year and thirdly, the petitioner is a chartered accountant, who is master mind of the crime and he has created 38 fake firms and availed ITC wrongfully to the tune of 6,36,32,492/-.

FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with case No. IV(06)121/AE/ALWAR/2020 Registered at G.S.T. Commissionerate Alwar for the offence(s) under Section 132(1) (b)/(c)/(f), 4R/20, 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter and the petitioner is a chartered accountant by profession and he is not liable for the offences committed by co-accused Counsel further submits that the maximum sentence for the offences alleged against the petitioner is five years and the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2021 and conclusion of trial may take long time. Counsel further submits that co-accused persons have already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

3. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Department (Union of India) has opposed the bail application and submitted that while arguing the bail application filed on behalf of co-accused Hemant Kumar Singhal, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8676/2020 the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner has been recorded in para No.3 & 4 of the order dated 04.11.2020, which reads as under:-

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner- Hemant Kumar Singhal that case of the petitioner would not travel beyond Section 132(1)(f) of C.G.S.T. Act, the maximum punishment for which as provided under the Act is only six months. It is contended that petitioner has not created any fake bills/invoices and has not availed or passed on any input tax credit. It is also contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three months. The main accused in this case is Abhishek Singhal, who is absconding.

4.  It is also contended that petitioner has appeared before the Authorities and has answered their queries. Petitioner-Hemant Kumar Singhal is pursuing his A. Course and his brother is a registered C.A., who is stated to be the main accused and was instrumental in getting GST registration of 38 fake firms. It is only because he is brother of the main accused that he has been arrested.”

4. Counsel further submits that the counsel appearing on behalf of the co-accused Hemant Kumar Singhal argued in the aforesaid application 8676/2020 that Abhishek Singhal is the main accused, who is absconding and he has got registered 38 fake firms. Counsel further submits that allegation against the petitioner is of availment by passing of ITC wrongfully to the tune of Rs.6,36,32,492/- by creating 38 fake firms. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has absconded for about one year.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner failed to appear before the Department while notices were issued to him, secondly, even after filing of complaint before the learned Trial court, he remained absconded for about one year and thirdly, the petitioner is a chartered accountant, who is master mind of the crime and he has created 38 fake firms and availed ITC wrongfully to the tune of 6,36,32,492/-.

7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 P.C.

8. Hence, the present bail application stands Dismissed.

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

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930