Saurabh Sharad Srivastava VS Central Goods

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in relation to a complaint filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, bearing No. COMA/49/2022, dated April 12, 2022. The complainant in this case is the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). According to the DGGI, the accused firm, M/s Saibro Industries, has allegedly availed input tax credit amounting to ₹5.65 crores from various non-existent suppliers, without actually receiving any goods. This purportedly occurred between July 2017 and November 2020. Investigations revealed that many of these suppliers were not operational from their registered premises, and some had even had their GST registration canceled. Additionally, some suppliers admitted to issuing invoices without actually supplying any goods. The accused is alleged to have

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, based on a complaint dated April 12, 2022, numbered COMA/49/2022. The complainant is the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). According to the DGGI, the accused firm, M/s Saibro Industries, allegedly availed input tax credit amounting to ₹5.65 crores from non-existent suppliers without actually receiving any goods. This purported fraudulent activity occurred between July 2017 and November 2020. Investigation revealed that many of these suppliers did not operate from their registered premises, and some had even cancelled their GST registration. Some suppliers admitted during the investigation that they issued invoices without actually supplying any goods. The accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under various sections of the CGST Act, 2017, including Section 132(1)(b)(c)(i)(3)(5), which are cognizable and non-bailable.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that there is insufficient credible evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. Additionally, it is argued that even if the allegations were true, the maximum punishment for the offence is five years, and the petitioner has already been in custody for about nine months. Furthermore, it is highlighted that out of the allegedly fraudulently availed input tax credit of ₹5.65 crores, the department has already recovered approximately ₹2.07 crores, thereby reducing the alleged fraud to around ₹3.6 crores.

In essence, the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds of being falsely implicated, lack of substantial evidence connecting him to the alleged offence, and the proportionality of the punishment given the amount already recovered by the department.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, based on a complaint lodged by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The accusation is that the accused firm, M/s Saibro Industries, fraudulently claimed input tax credit amounting to `5.65 crores from non-existent suppliers between July 2017 and November 2020, without actually receiving any goods. Investigations revealed that many of these suppliers were not operational from their registered premises, with some having their GST registration even cancelled. Some suppliers admitted to issuing invoices without supplying any goods. The accused faces charges under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(i)(3)(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, which is a cognizable and non-bailable offense.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner is falsely implicated and that there is insufficient credible evidence linking them to the alleged offense. They also highlight that the maximum punishment for the offense is 5 years, and the petitioner has already been in custody for approximately 9 months. Additionally, a significant portion of the allegedly fraudulently claimed input tax credit has already been recovered by the department, reducing the alleged fraud amount to approximately `3.6 crores.

In opposition, the CGST counsel contends that ample evidence implicating the petitioner has been gathered during the investigation. It is claimed that the petitioner created 23 bogus supplier firms, with their own mobile number and email ID being used in the registration process, suggesting direct complicity. However, it’s acknowledged that the petitioner has been in custody for about 9 months, and only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far during the pre-charge evidence stage.

After considering both sides, the Court acknowledges the substantial period the petitioner has spent in custody and the likelihood of a prolonged trial. Considering these factors, the Court may lean towards granting bail to the petitioner, given the absence of a clear and imminent threat of absconding or tampering with evidence.

The petitioner in this case is seeking regular bail in response to a complaint filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The complaint, dated April 12, 2022, alleges that the accused-firm, M/s Saibro Industries, availed input tax credit amounting to `5.65 crores from various non-existent suppliers without receiving any goods. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), representing the complainant-department, asserts that the accused committed offenses punishable under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(i)(3)(5) of the CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and lacks credible evidence linking him to the alleged offense. Additionally, they point out that the maximum punishment for the offense is five years, and the petitioner has already spent approximately nine months in custody. Furthermore, it’s noted that a portion of the allegedly fraudulent amount has already been recovered by the department, reducing the alleged fraud to around `3.6 crores.

In opposition, the counsel representing the CGST contends that substantial evidence has been gathered during the investigation, indicating that the petitioner created 23 bogus supplier firms, using his own mobile number and email address in their registrations. The counsel does not dispute that the petitioner has been in custody for about nine months and acknowledges that only two prosecution witnesses have been examined thus far out of the 37 cited.

The court weighs these arguments and considers the circumstances of the case. Recognizing the substantial period of the petitioner’s detention and the likelihood of a protracted trial, given the number of prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, the court concludes that further detention of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court grants the petitioner’s request for regular bail, contingent upon the satisfaction of bail or surety bonds to be determined by the appropriate judicial authority.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: