Case Law Details
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/-.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) by Abhishek Singhal (“the Petitioner”) being arrested for offences under Section 32(1) (b)/(c)/(f), 4R/20, and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”).
The Petitioner being a Chartered Accountant (“CA”) has been booked under the charge of wrongfully passing of Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) by creating 38 fake firms wherein he was absconding for about one year and has consequently been in custody since February 19, 2021.
The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan dismissing the bail application noted that the Petitioner failed to appear before the Department when the notices were issued to him. Even after the complaint was filed before the Trial Court, the Petitioner remained absconded. For the reasons mentioned, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
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.
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
