Fake ITC Scam of Rs. 75 Crores Uncovered; Patiala House Court to Grant Anticipatory Bail to Offender:

Fake ITC Scam of Rs. 75 Crores Uncovered; Patiala House Court to Grant Anticipatory Bail to Offender Recently, a new GST ITC fraud has been uncovered in which an individual made a fake ITC claim of Rs. 75 crore. The Patiala House Court, Delhi, has granted anticipatory bail to the individual who has performed the offense. The bench led by Chander Jit Singh (DHJS) noted that there is no concern that the applicant will try to run away from justice. Even if such a concern exists, no solid evidence has been provided to support it. The accused is a law-abiding citizen of India and a local business owner. He is employed as director of a firm, M/s Rajnandini Metal Limited, which is registered with the local GST Department. In accordance with the case, the officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence also visited both the home and factory of the accused, and a deep investigation was performed regarding the case. The accused was also taken to their office in Dwarka, New Delhi, for further investigation. The accused reported that the officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence began the case by hiding and twisting the facts carefully. The accused also claimed that he had been wrongly blamed for the situation. He also specified that the case was filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, not just to pressurise him, but also to keep him in a strong trap. The accused is found as a permanent resident of Faridabad and has a stable home with a clean background. He pays his income tax, so there’s no reason to think he will run away from the law. He promises to appear before the officers and cooperate in the investigation whenever asked. He also promises not to tamper with evidence or influence any witnesses. Keeping him in jail won’t help the case. That’s why this application is being made. The court said that most of the evidence was mainly paperwork, the investigation was almost finished, and keeping the applicant in custody for a long time wasn’t necessary, especially since the maximum punishment is five years and bail should be given unless there’s a strong reason not to. The court agreed to give anticipatory bail on the condition that the accused provide a bail bond of Rs. 200,000 and find one surety (a person who promises to pay if the accused doesn’t) for the same amount. This surety must be a close family member of the accused. The essential details about the case:

• Case Title: DGGI vs. Het Ram Sharma
• Date of Case: 09.05.2025
• Counsel for the accused: Sh. Ramakant Kaur, Ms. Snhea Arya, Sh. Harshil Gaur, Meenakshi Sahu, Roopini Nandam, Ms. Sobiya Manzoor, and Pankhuri Tiwari
• Counsel for Respondent: Karan Aggarwal