Meerut Court Denies Bail in 358.77 Crore Fake GST ITC Scam

In a significant ruling, the Meerut Court has refused bail to Vikrant Singhal, accused of availing wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) without any actual supply of goods. Additional District and Sessions Judge Chandra Shekhar Misra emphasized that the nature of the offence directly impacts public interest and poses a threat to the economic fabric of the nation.

The case involves severe economic crimes involving organized fraud. The Court took note of the serious nature of the money laundering, tax evasion and other economic crimes in the event that the offender is in a position, due to networks, to influence the investigation or evidence in another manner.

The information gathered by the officers of DGGI, Ghaziabad Regional Unit, indicated that Vikrant Singhal, his brother Sachin Singhal and his associate Pradeep Kumar were issuing invoices without a physical transfer of goods. All of them attempted to flee when E-Way Bills were prepared; however, Vikrant, Sachin, another brother, Rajat Singhal, and Gaurav Jain were detained along with their statements as their documents were recovered during the search.

The inquiry indicated that the WhatsApp chats and digital evidence recovered from the accused suggested a detailed system of fictitious companies. It was alleged that such companies were misusing their GST registration to generate fictitious purchase bills and distribute inadmissible ITC. Vikrant Singhal, Sachin Singhal, and Gaurav Jain were arrested while they were more actively involved in the fraud, yet they received bail from the High Court in a separate matter.

Special Public Prosecutor Lakshya Kumar Singh, representing the Central GST Department, strongly opposed the bail plea. He submitted that the accused was involved in creating 66 fake firms and passing on fraudulent ITC worth Rs 358.77 crore, as evidenced by seized digital communications.

Taking note of the severity of the crime, the ongoing investigation, and the flight risk posed by the accused, the Court concluded that releasing him on bail could hamper the probe. The bail plea was thus rejected, keeping in view the larger public interest and gravity of the offence.