Raman Kumar Chopra VS State of Punjab

The order under consideration addresses two petitions submitted by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar, requesting regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the CGST Commissionerate in Ludhiana under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. These petitions are a response to legal actions taken against them, likely related to alleged tax evasion or similar financial offenses.

In the legal context, “regular bail” typically refers to bail granted during the course of regular proceedings, as opposed to interim or anticipatory bail granted before the initiation of formal legal proceedings.

The specific section mentioned, Section 132 of the CGST Act, likely pertains to offenses and penalties related to tax evasion, fraudulent activities, or non-compliance with tax regulations under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime. This section likely outlines the powers and procedures for investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of such offenses.

The order’s disposition will determine the fate of these bail petitions, indicating whether Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar will be granted bail or not. This decision could have significant implications for their legal status and the progression of the proceedings against them.

The Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the CGST Commissionerate in Ludhiana likely plays a pivotal role in investigating and prosecuting cases related to tax evasion and similar offenses under the CGST Act within their jurisdiction.

Overall, the order’s outcome will hinge on various legal considerations, including the merits of the bail applications, the nature and gravity of the alleged offenses, the defendants’ eligibility for bail under relevant legal provisions, and any other pertinent factors presented during the proceedings.

The court delivered its verdict on two petitions filed by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar 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 (referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The accusations against the accused revolve around allegations that during the investigation, it was discovered that Shri Sunil Kumar, son of Shri Sobha Ram, was operating a network of fraudulent firms. He allegedly established seven firms under his own name, or under the names of his family members, employees, and their family members. These firms were purportedly utilized for illegitimate purposes, including the fraudulent acquisition of input tax credit (ITC) based on falsified invoices, as well as the unlawful transfer of fake ITC to buyers using invoices not supported by actual goods.

The firms attributed to Sunil Kumar’s operations are detailed as follows:

The order discussed pertains to two petitions filed by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar, 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 (referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The accusations against the accused involve allegations that during the investigation, it was discovered that Sunil Kumar, son of Shri Sobha Ram, was operating a network of fictitious firms. He allegedly established seven such firms in his or his family members’, employees’, or their family members’ names. These firms were purportedly utilized not only for illegitimately claiming input tax credit (ITC) based on counterfeit invoices but also for passing on fraudulent ITC to buyers using invoices unaccompanied by any goods.

In response to these accusations, the learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that their clients had been falsely implicated, contending that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations outlined in the complaint. Additionally, it was asserted that even if the allegations were proven, the maximum sentence for the offenses mentioned in the complaint is five years. Given that the petitioners have already spent over a year and four months in custody, they argued that they deserve to be granted bail.

The court addressed two petitions for bail filed by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar in a case initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Ludhiana, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The allegations revolved around Sunil Kumar allegedly running a network of bogus firms to fraudulently claim input tax credit (ITC) using fake invoices and passing on fraudulent ITC to buyers.

The petitioners claimed innocence, arguing lack of convincing evidence and pointing out that the maximum sentence for the offenses they were accused of was five years. They also highlighted the substantial time they had already spent in custody, over a year and four months.

The state, however, opposed bail, emphasizing Sunil Kumar’s central role in the alleged fraud, which amounted to over Rs. 31 crores siphoned from the state exchequer. While Sunil Kumar had no other cases against him, Raman Kumar Chopra faced separate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense under Section 193 IPC.

The court deliberated on the submissions and noted the creation of bogus firms for fraudulent ITC claims. Despite the significant amount involved, it acknowledged the petitioners’ lengthy detention without being prosecuted for any offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The only charges they faced were under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with a maximum sentence of…

The court’s ruling pertains to two petitions filed by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar seeking regular bail in a case initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The accusations against the accused, particularly Sunil Kumar, involve the operation of bogus firms to illicitly claim input tax credit and pass on fraudulent credits to buyers. The defense argues that the accused are falsely implicated and have already endured considerable imprisonment, thus warranting bail. Conversely, the state contends that due to the substantial amount siphoned from the state exchequer and the severity of the alleged offenses, bail should not be granted.

The court acknowledges the creation of bogus firms for tax evasion purposes but notes the significant duration of the petitioners’ imprisonment without the commencement of trial. It highlights that the accused are only charged under tax laws, which carry a maximum sentence of five years, and not under other criminal statutes. Given the likelihood of a protracted trial and the absence of prosecution for offenses beyond tax evasion, continued detention is deemed unjustified. Therefore, the court grants bail to the petitioners.

The court issued a decision on two petitions filed by Raman Kumar Chopra and Sunil Kumar, seeking regular bail in proceedings initiated by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) CGST, Commissionerate Ludhiana, under Sections 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, particularly Sunil Kumar, involved running a network of bogus firms to fraudulently avail and pass on input tax credit (ITC) based on fake invoices. Seven such firms were allegedly created and operated by Sunil Kumar. The defense argued that the accusations were false and lacked substantial evidence. They also highlighted that the maximum sentence for the offenses mentioned was five years, and since the accused had already spent over a year and four months in custody, they should be granted bail.

Opposing the petition, the state counsel emphasized the seriousness of the allegations, stating that a significant amount of over Rs. 31 crores had been siphoned off from the state exchequer. While Sunil Kumar had no other cases against him, Raman Kumar Chopra was facing proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for an offense under Section 193 IPC.

The court deliberated on the arguments presented. It noted that the accused had already been in custody for a considerable period, and the prosecution had not pursued charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), focusing solely on the GST Act offenses, which carry a maximum sentence of five years. Given the likelihood of a protracted trial, considering that it had not yet commenced and 13 prosecution witnesses had been cited, the court concluded that further detention of the petitioners was unjustified.

Consequently, both petitions were accepted, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail bonds or surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or concerned magistrates. The court instructed that a copy of the order be included in the file of connected cases.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: