Bail Granted to Accused Involved in GST Scam of Rs 14.33 Cr

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh(HP High Court) in the matter of PRATEEK GARG Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER has granted bail to accused involved in GST Scam of Rs 14.33 Cr.

The Petitioners is permanent resident of House No. B454, Ground Floor, Mera Bagh, Pachim Vihar, Delhi 110063 and House No. R71A, Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

The Allegations against petitioner is that the petitioner have been booked for offences under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of Central General Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 (for short CGST Act) and Section 20 (xv) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( for short IGST Act ) by Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit (DGGI) on the allegations that the petitioners in connivance with each other facilitated M/s Mahesh Trading Company, M/s Rajshree Trading Company and M/s Balaji Trading Company and other Firms in issuing invoices only without actual supply of goods with the motive to earn benefits by fraudulent means and thereby have caused a loss of Rs. 14.33 Crores to the government revenue.

Petitioners were arrested on 21.07.2021. They are in custody since then. The complaint for commission of offences under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of CGST Act and Section 20 (xv) of the IGST Act, has been filed against the petitioners by DGGI on 19.09.2021 before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., which is pending adjudication.

As per petitioners, the allegations leveled against them are not true and evidence has been created to implicate the petitioners at the instance of persons having inimical relations with them. It has further been submitted that the statements of the petitioners recorded under Section 70 of CGST Act were procured from them under duress and are not voluntary. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the respondent is based upon documentary evidence which is already in their custody.

The Bench found that there are serious allegations against the petitioners, but the same are required to be proved against them, in accordance with law, in order to secure their conviction, which is likely to take sometime. The offences, for which the complaint has been filed against the petitioners, attract punishment of imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine. Petitioners are in custody since 21.7.2021. The investigation qua the petitioners has already been completed and, therefore, the complaint stands filed against them on 19.9.2021. Pretrial prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed as a matter of rule. No presumption of guilt can be attached against the petitioners as cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence in our legal system is to presume innocence of accused till proved otherwise.

Also, the respondent has already made necessary recoveries and seizures of documents, including electronic records from the petitioners and the petitioners also cooperated with the investigation agency during investigation.

The Coram rule out that “In view of the above discussions, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in Complaint No.1/2021, registered by DGGI under Section 132(1)(b)(i) of CGST Act 2017 and Section 20 (xv) of the IGST Act, 2017, on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The Bail granted on following Conditions:

i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for investigation, as and when required and shall also appear on each and every date so fixed by learned trial Court during the course of trial of the complaint filed against them, save and except, when they are prevented from appearance on account of reasons beyond their control. In such event, the petitioners shall take appropriate steps seeking their exemption before learned trial Court.

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not also try to influence any prosecution witnesses or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from speaking the truth. They shall also not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the prosecution witnesses.

iii) Petitioners shall surrender their passports before learned trial Court, if not so earlier surrendered before learned trial Court or any other authority.

iv) Petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial.”

The Judgment made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya.

The Petitioners was repersented by Shri Loveneesh Kanwar, Advocate and the respondent was represented by Shri. Vijay Arora, Advocate.

To Read Judgment Download PDF Given Below: