Paras Jain vs Union
Case Title | Paras Jain vs Union of India |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Siddharth |
Citation | 2022 (7) GSTPanacea 259 HC Allahabad CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 21848 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 29-Jul-2022 |
Heard Sri Ramakant Gaur, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Prateek Kumar, Advocate, assisted by Sri Samaksh Sharma and Ms. Sneha Agha, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. DGCI/GRU/INV/2665/2021, under Sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Directorate General, D.G.G.I., G.S.T., Ghaziabad Regional Unit, Meerut, Zonal Unit, Meerut, during pendency of trial.
There are allegations in the complaint filed by the Directorate General of G.S.T. Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Meerut, regarding offences committed under Section 132 (1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the applicant and another coaccused, Jogvinder Singh, are that M/s ARJ Exim India availed fake Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.) of Rs.40.66 crores on the strength of invoices issued by non-existent firms, M/s JMJ Traders and Ms. Durga Traders, It was found that the aforesaid firms had passed on fraudulent I.T.C. to a common buyer, namely, M/s Balaji Enterprises, Delhi. The amount of fraudulent I.T.C. passed on by the two non-existent firms to M/s Balaji Enterprises is Rs.57.96 lacs. In the search conducted in the registered office of M/s Balaji Neutral Citation No. – 2022:AHC:114467 Enterprises, Sandeep Singhal, Proprietor of the firm stated that he has received some invoices for metal scrap from the applicant without receiving any goods. He admitted that bills from M/s Robin Traders, M/s Balaji Enterprises and other firms were sent by the applicant through whatsapp without supply of any goods and admitted his tax liability on account of availing fake I.T.C.. He voluntarily deposited Rs.3.14 crores on 17.02.2022. During further investigation, the applicant and co-accused, Jagvinder Singh, were found in one secret office at Shastri Nagar, New Delhi from where number of incriminating documents, like Adhar Cards, PAN Cards, forged rent agreements, forged electricity bills, etc., stamps of various firms, electronic devices and invoices of fake firms were recovered alongwith cash of Rs.35 lacs. Co-accused admitted managing and controlling number of firms by issuing fake invoices. The statement of Kunal Parcha, Accountant of Sri Jagvinder Singh was recorded, wherein he admitted issuing of fake bills on the direction of the accused. This fact was proved from the whatsapp of Kunal Parcha and the accused. The applicant admitted the allegations in his statement recorded under Section 70 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017. It was found that they have issued fake invoices from 76 bogus firms to various business buyers without supplying of goods or services and have availed ineligible Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.343 crores.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if all the allegations levelled in the complaint are admitted the alleged receipt of money by the accused persons fall between 10,50,00,000/- to Rs.15,84,00,000/- and the department will gain 2.3% of invoices amount. The real beneficiaries of the fraudulently availed I.T.C. have not been investigated so far. CW-8, CW-10 and CW-11 are co-accused and they can be conferred the status of approvers under Section 306 Cr.P.C. by the court and before that their statements cannot be admitted/read as evidence against the accused. He has pointed out to the Panchnama dated 17.02.2022, which shows that it was pre-signed by the Panch witnesses. There is big gap at the bottom of every page of Panchnama after its contents end. He has submitted that the Panchnamas were prepared in advance. All the statements are computer typed, which show that they were pre-typed and only signature of the accused were taken on their statements. Data allegedly collected from the mobile phone was done by a private firm and no certificate under Sections 145 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 is there. Such data cannot be read against the applicant at this stage. The private firm which examined the data is neither a examiner under Section 49-A of Income Tax Act nor authorized to conduct such analysis under Section 79-A of the Income Tax Act. The details of email-I.D. of the fake firms are not stated in the complaint.
Download PDF:
Paras Jain
For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court
Read another Case Law:
GST Casa Law