ITC Fraud Case Bail
Arvind Kumar vs. DGGI Amritsar [ CRM – M – 24201 of 2024 ]
Background of the Case
The Appellant was implicated in a case registered under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with relevant provisions of the Punjab GST Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2012. The core allegation against the Appellant, who is the proprietor of Bhumi Steel Traders, was that he had allegedly availed and utilized fake Input Tax Credit (ITC) invoices. These invoices were purportedly obtained from bogus firms created and operated by co-accused individuals, namely Sh. Deepanshu Srivastav and Mohit Kumar, leading to a significant loss to the State Exchequer amounting to Rs. 18.22 crores. The Appellant, filed before High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking bail.
Arguments by the Appellant
The counsel for the appellant, argued strenuously that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the present case. A key point of the appellant’s argument revolved around the fact that the co-accused, Sh. Deepanshu Srivastav, identified as the primary individual involved in generating these alleged fake/bogus invoices and causing the substantial loss to the State Exchequer, had already been granted the concession of bail by the Lucknow High Court via an order dated March 19, 2024. Leveraging this precedent, the appellant’s counsel sought the grant of regular bail for the appellant, emphasizing parity and challenging the basis of his continued incarceration.
Respondent’s Response
In response to the bail petition, the counsel of the respondent submitted the custody certificate of the appellant for the court’s record. On instructions from the Investigating Officer, the State Counsel vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail. The opposition was primarily rooted in the serious nature of the allegations, reiterating that the appellant’s alleged involvement in the fraudulent availing and utilization of Input Tax Credit to the tune of Rs. 18.22 crores constituted a grave offence.
Court Findings and Decision
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana found merit in the appellant’s plea for regular bail. The court’s analysis highlighted several crucial factors. Firstly, it was noted that the petitioner had already undergone a significant period of incarceration, specifically 2 months and 6 days. Secondly, and significantly, the court observed that the main accused in the case had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the court considered the clean antecedents of the appellant, indicating that he was not a habitual offender. A pivotal finding was that nothing incriminating had been recovered from the premises of the appellant.
The court further reasoned that while details regarding the petitioner’s role had been divulged, and certain other individuals named by the petitioner were still undergoing interrogation, it would be unjust to deny the petitioner regular bail given his substantial custody period. Emphasizing a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, the court asserted that no one should be considered guilty until their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, detaining the petitioner indefinitely would serve no meaningful purpose.
The High Court directed that the appellant, Arvind Kumar, be released on regular bail.
To download official order, Click Here
ITC Fraud Case Bail
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”