Heard Shri Vibhour Gupta and Ms. Mahak Gupta, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Shri Manu Vardhana, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and perused the record.

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant – Shishir Gupta @ Parul Gupta in Case Crime No. 1554 of 2021, under Sections 132(1) (b), 132 (1) (i) C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 Department D.G.G.I. Meerut Zonal Unit District Meerut, with the prayer to grant him anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

Learned counsel for the applic Compliance affidavit filed by State is taken on record. ant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and the case of the prosecution as is evident from the record is that one Shri Abhishek Jain purportedly the Proprietor of M/s. Alaknanda Bitumen is found involved in illegal activities of passing fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) by generating fake firms without there being any actual supply of goods and services and by creating 17 fake firms about 170 crores of ITC had been fraudulently availed without passing any goods. Aforesaid Abhishek Jain was arrested by the Investigating Authorities on 27.11.2021 and during the course of investigation the name of the applicant was allegedly taken by Shri Abhishek Jain in some statements recorded by Investigating Authorities under Section 70 of C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and it is alleged that the applicant was also having hand in gloves with the aforesaid Abhishek Jain in the alleged activities of manufacturing fraudulent ITC.

It is further submitted that the applicant had come in contact with Abhishek Jain in year 2020, who informed the applicant that he is involved in the business of sale and purchase of Petroleum Bitumen for which the applicant can work under him as an employee and his role would be to coordinate with the Authorities and the applicant who is an illiterate person as having studied only till 9th standard agreed to work as an employee of Shri Abhishek Jain and the role of the applicant was primarily of coordinating with various parties over the phone and he has never been consciously involved in any illegal activities of passing of fraudulent I.T.C.

It is further submitted that business was managed, run and owned by Shri Abhishek Jain and he was paying his government duties and taxes on regular basis and were also filing returns of G.S.T. within time and if any alleged illegality or irregularity has been found in the business operations of Shri Abhishek Jain the applicant is not having any concern with the same and no criminal liability could be fastened on the applicant, with regard to the same.

It is also submitted that the applicant has never received any money from any of the suppliers or buyers of the firms of Abhishek Jain directly in his bank account and was not associated with any of the alleged fake firms, in whatever capacity and admittedly the applicant is not a beneficiary of any fraudulent ITC prepared or passed by or on behalf of the Abhishek Jain.

It is also submitted that the main accused of the instant case Mr. Abhishek Jain has been granted default bail from the Sessions Court, Meerut and the applicant on the basis of parity is also entitled for grant of the facility of anticipatory bail.

It is also submitted that main beneficiaries of the illegal transactions are not being arrested by the Investigating Authorities and it shows that Investigating Agencies is not willing to take any action against the mighty and powerful persons but is hunting small persons like the applicant.

It is also submitted that no notice has been given by the Investigating Officer to the applicant under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. and the mandate of sections 69 and 70 of the GST Act has also not been complied. The applicant is respectable citizen of the locality and there is no apprehension that after granted the facility of anticipatory bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty and he undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation.

Learned counsels for the applicant has also referred and relied on orders passed in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 221/2020; Shyam Khemani Vs. State of M.P., dated 31.08.2022, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118/2019, Mukesh Manakchand Kothari vs. Union of India, dated 26.04.2019, Writ Petition (Crl.) 212/20-19, Gaj Raj Sing Baid vs. Union of India, dated 09.08.2019., Writ Petition No. (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018, Radhika Aggarwal vs. Union of India, dated 08.01.2019 and Writ Petition (Crl). 267/2019, Namrata Jain and another, dated 30.09.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on Sh. Nitin Verma Vs. The State of U.P. and another (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4116 of 2020, order dated 05.01.2021, Allahabad High Court, Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another [(2014)8 SCC 273], Sh. Raghav Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST Delhi North [Bail Application No. 4019 of 2020, order dated 16.12.2021, Delhi High Court], M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise [Writ Petition No. 5501 of 2019, order dated 04.04.2019, High Court of Judicature at Madras], Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan [1994 AIR SC 1775], State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 AIR 604], Sh. Saurav Gupta vs. CGST (Delhi East) [Bail Application No. 1408 of 2021, order dt. 28.5.2021, Delhi High Court], Lupija Saluja vs. DGGI & another [Bail Application No. 319 of 2021, order dated 11.02.2021, Delhi High Court], P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2019, order dated 04.12.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Mukesh Manackchand Kothari vs. Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118 of 2019, order dated 04.12.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Shyam Khemani Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 221 of 2020, order dated 31.08.2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Namrata Jain & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 267 of 2019, order dated 30.09.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 336 of 2018 order dated 08.,01.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Gaj Raj Singh Baid Vs. Union of India & Anr., Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 212 of 2019, order dated 09.08.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Shri Manuvardhana, learned counsel for Union of India vehemently submits that on a routine analysis of financial year wise inward supply it was noticed that about 18 inward suppliers were having gross self – mismatch between the ITC availed by the party in GSTR-3 B as compared to ITC accumulated as per GSTR- 2 A of the party. The registration status of most of these suppliers was found inactive, which raises suspicions about their genuineness and therefore the year wise supply from these firms to M/s N.K. Enterprises was taken out and it emerged that these suspicions firms have passed ITS of Rs. 599.15 Lakhs during the period 2018-19 to 2021-22.

It is also submitted that this ITC appears to be fake as the inward suppliers were either cancelled or were having gross self mismatch of ITC availed in their GSTR- 2 A and GSTR-3 B or both and in the supplies shown by the inward suppliers to each other, a nexus was found to be created to camouflage the real beneficiary, thus it was anticipated that total Rs. 599.15 Lakhs fake ITC has passed on by these suppliers to M/s N.K. Enterprises during the aforesaid period by creating 18 fake firms.

It is further submitted that the name of the instant applicant has been depicted by Shri Abhishek Jain Proprietor of Alaknanda Bitumen who in his statement dated 29.11.2021 and on 30.11.2021 has stated that he used to receive his commission from the applicant Shishir Gupta @ Parul Gupta for supplying invoices in the name of bogus/ non existing firm without supply of any goods and thus the fraudulent input tax credit were manufactured.

It is also submitted that there are other evidences, which shows that the applicant was receiving commission against the supply of these fake invoices/ bills as he has received the bills without signature and without stamp.

It is also submitted that the investigation of the case is going on and for proper investigation of the case the custodial interrogation of the applicant would be required as it is a matter of huge tax evasion running into lakhs of rupees.

It is also submitted that all legal formalities had been followed and adhered to during the course of investigation but the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation and there is possibility that he may tamper the evidence and thus having regard to the gravity of offences and the possibility of his fleeing from the course of law his anticipatory bail application may kindly be rejected.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record as well as having gone through the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant as well as keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaks Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab; (1980)2 SCC 655, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtgra 2011)1 SCC 694 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 as well as the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 1831 of 2019, it is evident that co-accused Abhishek Jain was arrested by the Investigating Agency and the name of the instant applicant has surfaced in his statement. Mr. Abhishek Jain in his statement has categorically stated that he used to purchase the goods amongst others from the instant applicant also and had obtained fake invoices without actual supplies of goods from the instant applicant and had claimed a total fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 599.15 Lakhs. Thus prima facie it reflects that the instant applicant was one of the fake customer of Mr. Abhishek Jain and the applicant has facilitated the claim of fraudulent ITC by Mr. Abhishek Jain apart from other persons. The instant matter is pertaining to large evasion of tax and to investigate the matter in depth the possibility of custodial interrogation of the applicant could not be ruled out. The offences pertaining to tax evasion or economic in nature are having a class of their own as they are effecting the economy of the country. In the considered opinion of this Court, for the reasons stated herein before the custodial interrogation of the applicant could not be ruled out and thus having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case it does not appear to be a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to the applicant/ accused.

Thus, anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Shishir Gupta @ Parul Gupta is hereby rejected.

The applicant may move an appropriate regular bail application before the appropriate Court and if such an application is moved by the applicant within reasonable time the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law, with expedition.