Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the applicant refused to file rejoinder affidavit.

Heard Sri Anshuman Vidhu Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Jagvinder Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case No.DGCI/GRU/INV/4582/2021, under Sections 132(1)(b) punishable 132(1)(i) of Central Goods and Servicew Tax Act, 2017, Directorate General, DGGI, GST, Ghaziabad Regional Unit, Meerut Zonal Unit, Meerut during pendency of the trial.

Allegations in the complaint filed by 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 co-accused, Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain are that M/s ARJ Exim India availed fake Input Tax Credit of Rs.40.66 crores on the strength of invoices issued by non-existent firms. M/s JMJ Traders and M/s Durga Traders were found to be non-existing suppliers of M/s ARJ Exim India. It was found that aforesaid firms had passed on fraudulent Input Tax Credit to a common buyer namely M/s Balaji Enterprises. The amount of fraudulent ITC passed on by the two non-existent firms to M/s Balaji Enterprises is Rs.57.96 lac. In the search conducted at the registered office of M/s Balaji Enterprises, Jagvinder Singh, applicant and Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain have created/operated various fake firms in the name of persons of non financial worth and from these fake/non-existent firms, they have issued fake invoices without any actual supply of goods to various business buyers who availed fraudulent Input Tax Credit on strength of these fake invoices and utilized the same for discharge of their outward GST liability. Jagvinder Singh and Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain have, thus, facilitated these business buyers to avail and utilize ineligible fake ITC by issuing bogus invoices from these 75 non-existent firms without supply of concomitant goods. They have against the sale of fake invoices, charged their commission in form of cash or they deduct their commission from the RTGS payment done by the buyers in lieu of the said fake invoices. An amount of Rs.35 lacs (approx) resumed from the office premise of Jagvinder Singh and Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain which appeared to be the commission, they get through the sale of fake invoices.

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 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 Baslaji 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 none 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 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 issuewd fake invoices from 76 bogus firms to various business buyers without supplying of goods or servicecs and have availed ineligible Input Tax Credit amounting to Rs.343 crores.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegation in the complaint is that both the partners were involved in controlling and operating fake firms and invoices with the sole intent defrauding the Government exchequer. Learned counsel for the applicant next argued that co-accused Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.07.2022. Offence under section 132 (1)(i) provides for punishment as that in cases where the amount of tax evaded or the amount of input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized or the amount of refund wrongly taken exceeds five hundred lakh rupees, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine; Section 132(2) provides that, where any person convicted of an offence under this section is again convictged of an offence under this section, then, he shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Applicant has no criminal history. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

Learned counsel for the opposite party has filed counter affidavit and submitted that allegations against the applicant are fully proved and the applicant has admitted his active role in the alleged offence and the offence committed by the applicant is cognizable and non-bailable as per Section 132(5) of CGST Act. During search at the premises of the applicant, fake invoices, ledger of buyer firms, copy of PAN card, e-way bills etc. are recovered and it was also found that on summon issued to 75 firms, no one turned up in response and the aforesaid firms have availed fradaulent ITC of Rs.5,28,91,94,250/-. Applicant case is not similar with co-accused.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that applicant and Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain control and operate alleged firms. The allegations against co-accused and applicant are similar and co-accused Paras Jain @ Rohan Jain has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and applicant’s case is similar with co-accused, who has been granted bail and keeing in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Jagvinder Singh, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail