9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of goods to certain manufacturer unit dealing in Copper and the data related to cash rotation by him and fake bill are either concealed in his residence or in his Kia car DL2CBE5977 or Fortuner Car DL9CAY0408. Accordingly, House No. 100, Ram Vihar, Delhi-110095, the residential premises of Gaurav Gupta was searched on 08.02.2024. After search, Gaurav Gupta was summoned by the Senior Intelligence Officer, to appear in his office at 4th Floor, Arrow Corporate Tower, Plot no. 6, Sector-14 Kaushambi, Ghaziabad on the same day to tender statement and to produce documents relevant with the investigation. The notice under Section 70 of CGST Act was issued to applicant/accused Gaurav Gupta and his statements were recorded on 08.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 respectively. In his statement dated 08.12.2024 & 09.12.2024 recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, Gaurav Gupta unequivocally admitted that he has bought the 12 fake firms and arranged fake ITC therein and passed on that fake ITC to the other tax payers by issuing invoices of those firms without supplying of goods and thus, passed on fake ITC amounting to Rs. 41.90 Crores(approx). He also unequivocally admitted in his statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms manage and control by him and passing on of fake ITC by issuing invoices of those firms without supply of goods. Thus, committed offences specified under Section 132 (1) (b), 132 (1) (c) of the CGST Act, 2017, which are covered under Clause (i) of Section 132 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Being the amount involved is more than Rs 5 Crore, hence, after recording the reasons to believe u/s 69 of the CGST Act, the Competant Authority Shri Satendra Mathuria authorized Rajnish Kumar Intelligence Officer to arrest the applicant/accused Gaurav Gupta. In pursuance thereof the intelligence officer Rajnish Kumar intimated grounds of arrest to applicant/accused Gaurav Gupta and thereafter he was arrested by the Intelligence Officer on 13.02.2025. 4. Ld Counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the involvement of the applicant/accused in the said crime has been shown on the basis of apparent facts which are absolutely wrong. The accused/applicant is falsely named in above noted case by the DGGI Ghaziabad zonal unit & Anr. The above case is filed by DGGI official against accused/applicant without any concrete evidence that means the accused/applicant is innocent. That is very clear accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar was not followed while making the arrest of the applicant/accused. The witnesses of the complaint/prosecution are the officials of the Department and they cannot be influenced by the applicant in any manner. Lastly, he prays that he be enlarged on bail. 5. In support of his argument he has also relied on Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in D.K. Shivakumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in Laws (SC) 2014.7.7, Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India Criminal Appeal No. 3173 of 2024, Premparaksh V/s Union of India, Shahzad Alam V/s State of U.P. and Akshat Jain vs Union of India & vide Orders dated 26.06.2020 and 10.033.2022, Abdul Shaji Vs. The Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise vide Judgment dated 22.04.2022, Sumit Mehta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570. Paras Jain@ Rohan Jain vs. Union of India (2022 tmi 52 AHC, Ashish Kakkar vs. Union of India 2023, Ravinder Nath Sharma vs. Union of India AB (213). 6. Per contra Counsel for the Special Public Prosecutor (Customs and GST) Shri Lakshay Kumar Singh has vehemently oppose the prayer for bail and has spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting his arrest. He further prays that the bail application of applicant/accused is liable to be rejected. 7. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the Judgments namely Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy V. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439. Ram Narain Popli vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Appeal (Crl.). 1097 of 1999. Nimmagadda Prasad vs C.B.I. Hyderabad on 9 May, 2013 S.C. AIR 2013. Serious Fraud Investigation Vs Nittin Jokari 2019 S.C. (Cr. A No. 1381/2019). Union of India vs Padam Narain Aggarwal etc. 2008 S.C. Cr A 1575/2008. Radheshyam Kejriwal vs State of West Bengol & Aur 2011 S.C. Cra No. 1097/2003. Govind Agarwal vs State of U.P. and another 2020 ILC (ALL) (C.R.P.C 438 No. 1337/2020 Misc.). Rajesh Goyal vs Union of India (High Court of Rajasthan) S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 726 of 2011.PV Ramana Reddy vs Union of India on 18 April 2019 (H.C. Telangana). Tejas Dugad vs. Union of India, (Bombay High Court). 8. Having heard the Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record it transpires, that an investigation has been conducted against Gaurav Gupta alias Pintu to the effect that he is associated with the fake billing nexus and he is arranging cash rotation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ZU) 5,67,86,966 5,68,80,174 Total 53,61,21,934 54,03,41,186 9. The proprietor/partners of the above mentioned 12 firms were summoned by issuing summons at the registered Principle Place of Businesses of those firms as well as the registered residential address of each of them but except Shri Mohd. Azad, Proprietor of M/s Manav Enterprises, none appeared. Shri Mohd, Azad, in his statement dated 14.01.2025 stated that he is MTS Staff (on contract basis) in LNJP Hospital, Delhi and he did not register any firm with the GST department on his PAN No. BUUPV3897D. Analysis of the GSTR-1M of all the 12 firms managed and controlled by Gaurav Gupta revealed that ITC amounting to Rs. 54.03 Crores has been passed by issuing tax invoices of those firms. Gaurav Gupta emerged out as the mastermind for the 12 firms managed and controlled by him, and the brain behind the entire of availment of fake ITC on the strength of invoices taken without receipt of underlying goods and passing on of the fake ITC by issuing invoices of those firms without supply of goods. 10. The intention of the accused is of having transactions without actual supply of goods, for claiming input tax credit (ITC) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bengal 2011 3 SCC 581. 15. The Judgments relied upon by the Counsel for the applicant/accused in the case of D.K. Shivakumar (Supra), Jalaluddin Khan (Supra) Premparaksh (Supra), Shahzad Alam(Supra), Abdul Shaji (Supra), Paras Jain@ Rohan Jain (Supra), Ashish Kakkar (Supra) will not lend any support to him as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram (Supra)has held that irrespective of the nature and the gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant of or refusal of bail though it may have bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial. 16. The offence in the present is affecting the public interest at large. 17. The present case relates to economic offences. Such offence like large scale fraud, money laundering and corruption, are often viewed seriously because they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Courts may deny bail in such cases especially if the accused holds a position of influence or power. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
