Top Stories Creation and Operation of 294 Fake Firms and Evasion of Rs.1,032 Crores GST: Rajasthan HC rejects Bail to Accused [Read Order] Rajasthan HC rejects bail to accused alleged in creation and operation of 294 fake firms and evasion of Rs. 1,032 Crores tax By Kalyani B. Nair – On March 19, 2024 5:59 pm – 2 mins read The Rajasthan High Court rejected the bail to the accused alleged in the creation and operation of 294 fake firms and evasion of Rs. 1,032 Crores tax.

The petitioner has been arrested in the instant case on 02.11.2023 and after his arrest, complaint has been filed against him for the offences punishable under Section 132(1) (b) (c) (f) of the CGST Act, 2017 on 30.12.2023. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been impleaded as accused in the instant case on the basis of his confessional statement recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act and that the aforesaid statement of the petitioner is not admissible in evidence, at this stage, as the same is not relevant, as there was no adjudication of the allegations on merit in view of Section 136 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The counsel for the Union of India opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, it was revealed that the petitioner has created and operated 294 fake firms and has evaded a tax of Rs. 1,032 Crores.

The Counsel submitted that not only the confessional statement of the petitioner is there on the record, but the evidence is also there when physical verification of more than 50 fake firms created by the petitioner was done inasmuch as, the address of all the fake firms is one and the same and that the petitioner was involved in committing the offence and has caused loss of Rs.1,032 Crores to the Government. A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that “There cannot be any straight jacket formula to decide the bail applications in favour to the accused merely because the alleged offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class and the same is punishable with an imprisonment of five years only. Every bail application is required to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and the merits of the case.”

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and evidence collected by DGGI, seriousness of the offence and further considering the fact that the bail application of the similarly placed accused Anil Kumar has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail” the Court concluded.