Amit Kaushik VS Sate of Haryana

complied with the statutory requirements under the GST Act and Rules. The petitioner, who is seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is implicated in FIR No. 405 dated 24.10.2020, lodged at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad, Haryana. The complainant, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, an Excise and Taxation Officer, initiated the FIR based on information from the office of Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Panchkula.

The complaint alleges that M/s A.S. Enterprises, located at Flat No. 68, ECWS Ground Floor Sector 81, Faridabad, with GSTIN 06BWTPA3969EIZA, was engaged in fraudulent activities involving bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) through falsified documents. Subsequent physical verification of the firm’s premises and scrutiny of its registration certificate on the GST Portal revealed non-compliance with statutory obligations mandated by the GST laws.

In light of these allegations, the petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), contending [here, mention the petitioner’s arguments for bail, such as lack of direct involvement, cooperation with the investigation, or any other grounds raised in the petition].

The case involves serious charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner’s plea for bail hinges on the assertion of [insert grounds here, like absence of criminal antecedents, being a responsible citizen, or other relevant points].

The matter is presently before the [mention the relevant court or authority handling the bail petition], where the petitioner anticipates a favorable consideration of the bail application in light of the circumstances and arguments presented.

This summary encapsulates the essential details of the petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. 405/2020 registered at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad, Haryana, involving allegations of GST fraud against M/s A.S. Enterprises.

the petitioner has prayed for regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in relation to FIR No. 405 dated 24.10.2020, filed at Police Station Faridabad Central, District Faridabad, Haryana. This FIR was initiated based on a complaint by Rajesh Kumar Yadav, an Excise and Taxation Officer, alleging fraudulent activities involving M/s A.S. Enterprises.

The complaint alleged that M/s A.S. Enterprises, registered at an address in Faridabad, had engaged in fraudulent activities related to claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake documents. Upon investigation, it was found that the firm existed only on paper and had not conducted any actual business transactions, thereby causing a substantial loss of Rs. 2,05,79,076/- to the Government Exchequer. The proprietor of the firm, Ashok, was accused of registering the firm under GST solely for fraudulent purposes, with the intent to evade taxes.

In defense, the petitioner, not named in the FIR itself, contends through their counsel that they have been falsely implicated. The petitioner’s arrest occurred almost two years after the FIR was lodged, raising questions about the delay in initiating proceedings. Additionally, it is highlighted that no assessment order or penalty has been issued against the petitioner thus far. The firm in question was purportedly owned by co-accused Ashok, further distancing the petitioner from direct involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities.

The petition seeks bail on grounds of being unjustly implicated, lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offenses, and the absence of any previous legal action or penalties imposed against them. The defense maintains that the delay in arrest and absence of specific allegations against the petitioner underscore the weakness of the case presented by the prosecution.

In conclusion, the petitioner urges the court to grant them regular bail, asserting innocence and arguing that their continued detention is unwarranted given the circumstances outlined in the case.

done. Therefore, this is a case of fraudulently floating a non-existent firm solely for the purpose of claiming and utilizing bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fabricated transactions, causing a substantial loss to the Government Exchequer.

The petitioner, seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., asserts innocence, claiming no involvement in the alleged offenses. The FIR does not name the petitioner, who was arrested nearly two years after the FIR was lodged, suggesting a delay in initiating action. It is argued that since the alleged evasion amount falls below the threshold for non-bailable offenses, continued custody serves no purpose, especially considering the anticipated lengthy trial process.

On the contrary, the State opposes bail, presenting the petitioner as the mastermind behind the fraudulent activities of the firm, responsible for fabricating documents and causing significant financial loss to the government. Additionally, the petitioner is implicated in another criminal case, highlighting potential criminal tendencies.

After hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records, the court is tasked with deciding whether to grant the petitioner regular bail, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the extent of financial loss to the exchequer, and the petitioner’s role in the alleged offenses.

In essence, the case revolves around allegations of systematic financial fraud through a fictitious firm, with the petitioner asserting innocence and procedural irregularities, while the State contends significant criminal culpability and ongoing risk if bail is granted. The court’s decision hinges on balancing these competing claims to ensure justice and the integrity of the legal process.

a forged rent agreement for these firms. The petitioner’s involvement extends beyond M/s A.S. Enterprises, as alleged by the prosecution, encompassing multiple instances of fraudulent activities aimed at tax evasion and financial deceit.

The case revolves around FIR No. 405 dated 24.10.2020, where the petitioner stands accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC at Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana. The complaint by Rajesh Kumar Yadav, an Excise and Taxation Officer, outlines how M/s A.S. Enterprises, purportedly owned by Ashok Kumar, engaged in systematic tax fraud through fabricated transactions, resulting in a significant loss to the Government Exchequer amounting to Rs. 2,05,79,076/-.

During investigations, it emerged that M/s A.S. Enterprises existed only on paper, with no physical business operations conducted despite claiming Input Tax Credit through falsified documents. The petitioner, allegedly Ashok’s accomplice, was arrested on 29.09.2022, nearly two years after the FIR was filed, asserting innocence and claiming ignorance of the fraudulent activities.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that he was not named in the original FIR and that the alleged offense, being bailable due to the amount involved, does not warrant prolonged custody. They highlight delays in legal proceedings and the absence of assessment orders or penalties as reasons for bail.

In opposition, the State contends that the petitioner orchestrated multiple instances of fraud, including creating fake firms such as Aqua Traders and R.K. Enterprises using stolen identities and forged documents. This scheme, orchestrated with co-accused Ashok Kumar, is said to have involved substantial financial transactions without the knowledge or consent of the victims whose identities were misappropriated.

Evidence recovered during the investigation, including incriminating documents from the petitioner’s residence, supports the State’s allegations of systematic fraud and misuse of identity documents for financial gain.

Having considered arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence presented, the Court is tasked with adjudicating whether the petitioner’s involvement in these fraudulent activities warrants continued detention or if bail should be granted pending trial. The complexity of the case, involving substantial financial fraud and misuse of personal identities, underscores the gravity of the charges and the potential implications for the petitioner’s liberty pending trial.

In the matter brought under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner seeks regular bail in relation to FIR No. 405 dated 24.10.2020, lodged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Faridabad Central, Haryana. The FIR was initiated based on a complaint by Rajesh Kumar Yadav, an Excise and Taxation Officer, alleging fraudulent activities by M/s A.S. Enterprises, a firm registered under GSTIN 06BWTPA3969EIZA.

The complaint detailed that M/s A.S. Enterprises, purportedly based in Faridabad, was found to be non-existent upon physical verification. The firm allegedly engaged in substantial tax evasion through fictitious transactions, causing a loss exceeding Rs. 2 crores to the government exchequer. The proprietor, Ashok Kumar, was accused of orchestrating these fraudulent activities solely to exploit Input Tax Credit (ITC) provisions under the GST Act, without conducting any actual business transactions.

The petitioner, in his plea for bail, contends that he has been wrongly implicated and was not directly named in the FIR. He asserts lack of knowledge regarding the firm’s operations, highlighting that the alleged tax evasion amount falls within bailable limits under the law. The petitioner further argues prolonged detention since his arrest in September 2022, despite no recovery being sought from him and the absence of any assessment or penalty proceedings.

Conversely, the State opposes bail, presenting an affidavit stating that the petitioner played a central role in the fraud scheme. It is alleged that he facilitated the creation of multiple fake firms, including M/s Aqua Traders and R.K. Enterprises, using forged documents and misappropriating identities without consent. Evidence suggests that the petitioner was involved in these activities with full awareness of their illegal nature, as indicated by disclosures and statements from accomplices.

After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the record, the court underscores the gravity of economic offences like those alleged here, emphasizing their detrimental impact on public revenue. The court notes the seriousness of the charges and the apparent involvement of the petitioner in a scheme that caused significant financial loss to the government.

Consequently, based on the material presented and the nature of the offences, the court declines to grant regular bail to the petitioner, citing the substantial prima facie evidence of his complicity in the fraudulent activities. The decision reflects the court’s view on the necessity to deter such fraudulent practices and protect public funds from exploitation.

Thus, the petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is denied, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the involvement attributed to the petitioner in the economic offences detailed in the FIR.

Download PDF:
Amit Kaushik

For Reference Visit:
Punjab And Haryana High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case law