The Rohtak Court refused to grant bail to persons accused of floating bogus firms and issuing invoices without actual movement of goods.
The proprietorship firms, namely, M/s Hanuman Enterprises, M/s Jai Bhagwati Sales, M/s Jagdamba Trading Company, M/s UT Overseas, M/s T.P. Impex, M/s Guru Nanak Enterprises and M/s Jayant Trading Company were created with ulterior motives to issue fake invoices without supplying goods and for earning illegal commission.
In the investigation, it was found that these fake transactions caused loss to the tune of Rs. 13.08 crores to the Government exchequer. According to the complainant, present applicant, Vikas Jain is the proprietor of M/s Jai Bhagwati sales and he has connived with co-accused namely, Satender Kumar Singla to avail and pass Input Tax Credit fraudulently from the firm namely, M/s Hanuman Enterprises.
The Applicant has contended that M/s Satender is the main accused and even as per the allegations of the complainant, no direct benefit has been availed by the applicant. He vehemently contended that as per the case of the complainant, exact amount of loss has not been assessed.
Nothing has been stated about how the applicant is connected to Hanuman Enterprises and there is a hypothetical calculation that the applicant has issued fake invoices without movement of goods involving GST of Rs. 5.12 crore only to make the offence cognizable and non-bailable, the applicant added.
On the other hand the revenue opposed the bail application and submitted that Section 132 of GST Act provides ‘whoever commits’ the offence of issuing any invoice or bill without supplying goods or services or both in violation of the provisions of this Act is covered within the ambit of GST Act.
It was further submitted that it is not necessary that applicant/accused should be connected with Hanuman Enterprises and it is suffice that he issued fake invoices in the name of Hanuman Enterprises.
The revenue further argued that assessment is not the prerequisite to attract the Section 132 of GST Act. He also submitted that the bail application of the co-accused has already been dismissed. The court consisting of Neetika Bhardwaj while refusing the bail to the applicant said that the investigation is still pending and the same is at initial stage and in these circumstances, granting concession of bail to the accused will prejudice the fair investigation.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
