Asha VS State of Punjab

The petitioners have applied for regular bail in legal proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Commissionerate in Ludhiana. These proceedings are being conducted under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Section 132 of the CGST Act outlines various offenses related to the evasion of tax, such as making false claims, fabricating records, and supplying goods or services without proper invoicing, which can lead to serious penalties including imprisonment. The inclusion of Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act extends these provisions to the context of inter-state transactions, ensuring that offenses committed in the domain of IGST are subject to similar penalties and enforcement actions.

The petitioners’ request for bail is a critical juncture in the legal process, where the court must balance the enforcement of tax laws and the protection of public revenue against the rights of the individuals to liberty and a fair trial. The decision on granting bail will consider factors such as the severity of the alleged offenses, the petitioners’ involvement and role in the evasion activities, the likelihood of their presence at future hearings, and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The CGST and IGST Acts form part of a comprehensive legislative framework designed to streamline and enforce indirect tax collection across India, aiming to curb tax evasion and ensure compliance. The bail proceedings, therefore, are not only a matter of individual liberty but also of maintaining the integrity of the tax system. The outcome will have implications for the petitioners and the broader enforcement of GST regulations in the country.

The petitioners have applied for regular bail in a legal case initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the CGST Commissionerate in Ludhiana. The case is filed under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in conjunction with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core of the allegations against the accused centers on the discovery that Shri Sunil Kumar, the son of Shri Sobha Ram, was operating a network of fraudulent firms. During the investigation, it was revealed that Sunil Kumar had established seven different firms either in his own name or in the names of his family members, employees, and their relatives. These firms were created and managed with the primary purpose of unlawfully availing inadmissible input tax credit (ITC).

The nature of the accusations suggests that these bogus firms were not engaged in genuine business activities. Instead, they existed solely to manipulate the GST system for financial gain. The fraudulent activities conducted by these firms included generating fake invoices and documentation to claim ITC without any actual supply of goods or services. This manipulation resulted in a significant evasion of taxes, undermining the integrity of the GST regime.

The investigation’s findings indicated a deliberate and orchestrated attempt by Sunil Kumar to exploit the GST framework. The use of family members’ and employees’ names to create these firms further points to an attempt to obfuscate the true ownership and operation of the fraudulent network. The authorities likely gathered substantial evidence, such as financial records, communications, and transaction trails, to substantiate the charges against Sunil Kumar and the associated entities.

Given the serious nature of the allegations and the potential financial impact of the fraudulent activities, the petitioners are seeking regular bail to avoid pre-trial detention while the legal proceedings are ongoing. The decision on granting bail would involve considering factors such as the severity of the alleged crimes, the evidence presented, the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the petitioners’ likelihood to appear for trial.

In summary, the petitioners’ application for bail arises from a case involving significant allegations of GST fraud, where a network of bogus firms was purportedly created to illegitimately claim input tax credits, leading to substantial tax evasion. The legal proceedings will determine the extent of the accused’s culpability and the appropriate legal consequences for their actions.

The petitioners are seeking the grant of regular bail in a case initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana, under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations against the accused, Shri Sunil Kumar, son of Shri Sobha Ram, involve operating a network of bogus firms. During the investigation, it was discovered that Sunil Kumar had established seven firms in his own name, as well as in the names of his family members, employees, and their family members.

The purpose of these firms was to avail inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) using fake invoices and to pass on fraudulent ITC to buyers with invoices that were not accompanied by actual goods. These activities facilitated the misuse of the tax credit system, leading to significant revenue losses. The specifics of the firms created and operated by Sunil Kumar are detailed in the investigation findings. The case highlights serious charges of tax evasion and fraudulent practices within the GST framework, prompting legal action and the petitioners’ request for bail amidst the ongoing proceedings.

The petitioners seek regular bail in a case initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The case revolves around allegations that Shri Sunil Kumar, son of Shri Sobha Ram, was operating a network of bogus firms. Sunil Kumar allegedly created seven firms in his own name or in the names of his family members, employees, and their family members. The purpose of these firms was to fraudulently avail and pass on inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) using fake invoices that were not accompanied by actual goods.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the accused created bogus firms in their names or in the names of their family members and employees. They contended that the three petitioners, who are all women, were unaware of the activities conducted on their behalf, and their signatures were obtained through minor inducements. The counsel further asserted that there is no evidence showing that the petitioners personally benefited from the amounts allegedly received as input tax credits. Specifically, Mandeep Kaur is accused of fraudulently availing ₹57,68,106, Davinder Kaur ₹3,92,15,447, and Asha ₹5,15,00,394.

The petitioners are seeking regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana, under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The allegations against the accused, specifically Sunil Kumar, are that he has been running a network of bogus firms created in his name or in the names of his family members, employees, and their family members. These firms were allegedly used to avail inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) through fake invoices and to pass on fraudulent ITC to buyers without any accompanying goods.

The firms created and operated by Sunil Kumar are detailed in the investigation, revealing a systematic fraud involving the manipulation of tax credits.

The petitioners’ counsel argues that the accused women were unaware of the fraudulent activities conducted on their behalf. Their signatures were allegedly obtained through small inducements, and there is no evidence that they personally benefited from the amounts received as input tax credits. The amounts allegedly availed by the accused are substantial, with Mandeep Kaur allegedly availing ₹57,68,106, Davinder Kaur ₹3,92,15,447, and Asha ₹5,15,00,394.

The counsel further argues that since the maximum sentence under Section 132 of the Act is 5 years, and the petitioners have already spent about 8 months in custody, they should be granted bail. The argument emphasizes that the petitioners are women, and Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) suggests that a lenient view should be taken when granting bail to women and infirm persons.

The petitioners seek regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations against the accused are that Shri Sunil Kumar, son of Shri Sobha Ram, has been running a network of bogus firms created in his name or in the names of his family members, employees, and their family members. These firms were used to avail inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) through fake invoices and to pass on fraudulent ITC to buyers without any accompanying goods. The details of the firms created by Sunil Kumar were presented.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the accused were not aware of the activities conducted on their behalf and that their signatures were obtained through small allurements. They emphasized that there is no evidence showing that the petitioners personally benefited from the alleged amounts. Mandeep Kaur is alleged to have fraudulently availed INR 57,68,106, Davinder Kaur INR 3,92,15,447, and Asha INR 5,15,00,394. Given that the maximum sentence under Section 132 of the Act is five years and the petitioners have already been in custody for about eight months, the counsel contended that they deserve the concession of regular bail, especially since they are women. Section 439 Cr.P.C. recognizes that a lenient view may be taken in granting bail to women and infirm persons.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondent argued against granting bail, highlighting that the accused siphoned off a colossal amount of INR 31,48,04,523 from the State exchequer in connivance with each other. Given the significant amount attributed to the petitioners, the counsel contended that they do not deserve regular bail.

The petitioners seek regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations against the accused involve Shri Sunil Kumar, who is alleged to have created and operated seven bogus firms in his name and in the names of his family members and employees. These firms were used to avail inadmissible input tax credit (ITC) based on fake invoices and to pass on fraudulent ITC to buyers through invoices not accompanied by goods.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argue that the accused women were unaware of the fraudulent activities and were lured into signing documents for small benefits. They assert that there is no evidence showing that the petitioners personally benefited from the ITC amounts. Mandeep Kaur is alleged to have availed ₹57,68,106/- fraudulently, Davinder Kaur ₹3,92,15,447/-, and Asha ₹5,15,00,394/-. Given that the maximum sentence under Section 132 of the Act is five years and the petitioners have already been in custody for about eight months, the counsel contends they deserve regular bail. The counsel highlights that the petitioners are women and that Section 439 Cr.P.C. suggests leniency for women and infirm individuals in bail matters.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondent opposes the bail petition, arguing that a massive amount of ₹31,48,04,523/- was siphoned off from the state exchequer through the collective actions of the accused, including the petitioners. They contend that the significant amount attributed to the petitioners justifies denying regular bail.

The court, while not commenting on the case’s merits, acknowledges the petitioners’ substantial time in custody (around eight months) compared to the maximum possible sentence of five years. Considering the petitioners are women and have been detained for a significant period, the court concludes that their further detention is not justified and grants regular bail.

1. The petitioners sought regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

2. The allegations revolve around Shri Sunil Kumar, accused of operating a network of bogus firms to fraudulently claim input tax credit (ITC) through fake invoices and pass on fraudulent ITC to buyers without accompanying goods. Seven such firms were allegedly created in his and his associates’ names.

3. The petitioners, represented by their counsel, argued that they, being ladies, were unaware of the activities related to the bogus firms attributed to them. They claimed their signatures were obtained under false pretenses, and they did not personally benefit from the alleged fraudulent activities.

4. The counsel further argued that the petitioners had already spent approximately 8 months in custody, highlighting that the maximum sentence under Section 132 of the Act is 5 years. They contended that given the circumstances, bail should be granted as per the leniency provisions under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially considering the petitioners’ gender and health conditions.

5. In opposition, counsel for the respondent argued that a substantial amount of ₹31,48,04,523/- had been fraudulently diverted from the state exchequer, implicating all accused, including the petitioners, in connivance with each other. They asserted that due to the magnitude of the alleged offense, the petitioners should not be granted regular bail.

6. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court refrained from commenting on the case’s merits but noted the petitioners’ gender and the duration of their custody.

7. Given that the maximum possible sentence is 5 years and considering the petitioners’ gender and the time already spent in custody, the court deemed further detention unjustified.

8. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted the petitioners regular bail, pending the furnishing of bail bonds or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or concerned authorities.

This summary encapsulates the main arguments, allegations, and the court’s decision in the matter.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: