VKJ Latest News Update

VKJ Law Offices of Vinay K. Jain Advocates & Solicitors

GST – Bogus billing – Accused charged with economic offence of 80 crores and alleged to be kingpin of crime, is not entitled to benefit of bail: High Court of Punjab & Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No. 18992/2019

VIKAS GOEL

Vs

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX INTELLIGENCE

GURUGRAM ZONAL UNIT

Inderjit Singh, J

Dated: July 24, 2019

Appellant Rep. by: Mr. Vinod S Bhardwaj, Adv

Respondent Rep. by: Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Standing Counsel

GST – Petitioner has filed second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail.

Held: Perusal of record shows that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner, who is the main accused, that he alongwith co-accused, by falsely showing bogus billing etc., adjusted the amount without any actual transportation of the goods or sale of goods etc. – Only paper transactions were done and the accused have wrongly claimed the relief of more than Rs. 80 crore and the case is at preliminary stage – Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai has held that the accused charged with economic offence of huge magnitude and alleged to be the kingpin of crime, is not entitled to the benefit of bail – not a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail – no merit in petition, hence dismissed: High Court

Petition dismissed

Case law cited –

Bearing No.COMA-137 dated 13.11.2018, titled as Shankar Prasad Sarma Versus MICA Industries and others

State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai, 2017 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 690

JUDGEMENT

Petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in a complaint case bearing No.COMA-137 dated 13.11.2018, titled as Shankar Prasad Sarma Versus MICA Industries and others, under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 10 of the IGST in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel appeared and filed a reply on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record.

Perusal of record shows that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner, who is the main accused, that he alongwith co-accused, by falsely showing bogus billing etc., adjusted the amount without any actual transportation of the goods or sale of goods etc. Only paper transactions were done and the accused have wrongly claimed the relief of more than Rs. 80 crore. The case is at preliminary stage.

In State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai, 2017 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 690, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the accused charged with economic offence of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin of crime, is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

Keeping in view the serious nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the fact that the petitioner-accused has been charged with economic offence of huge magnitude, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: