New Delhi: The ASJ Special Judge has denied bail to Rajesh Jindal, who was arrested by the department for issuing invoices of GST Input Tax Credit without the actual supply of goods.
Adv. Aditya Kumar, the Defence Counsel represented that there was no reason for continuing to keep the accused in Jail since 22.12.2018. The department has already recovered the documents and material belonging to the accused during the search. Rajesh Jindal’s statement has also been recorded. He presented himself before the Investigating Officers a couple of times but his statement was not recorded. Officers have also visited the Jail to record his statement. The case is primarily based on documents which are in the possession of the Department. It was submitted that he is a respectable businessman with no past criminal antecedents and having deep roots in society. Moreover, he is the sole bread earner of a family having two small children. He has co-operated in the investigations and that the statement of the person alleging intimidation is not reliable. It was, therefore, submitted that he deserves bail.
Also Read: Mandatory Pre-deposit can be made through CGST Credit: CESTAT
On the other hand, IOs Amar Singh and Sahil Yadav, placed before the Court, details prepared by the Department of the tax liability of 42 crores of GST involving transactions worth Rs. 251 crores. Adv. Harpreet Singh Sr CGSC argued that there were serious allegations against the accused. He took the Court through the modus-operandi of floating dummy companies in the names of poor persons and generation of fake invoices without an actual supply of underlying goods, done with malafide intent to pass on the undue advantage of the Input Tax credit to various companies for utilizing bogus GST-ITC. It is in this manner, the accused had earned an unjust commission.
TheSCGSC took the Court through various orders earlier passed in the case by CMM, again a review by CMM, DHC, ASJ, DHC.
The case of the second accused was argued by Ld. Adv. Rajesh Jain who vehemently opposed the cancellation of bail of Adesh Jain on the plea that he has not raised any invoice to attract the provisions of Section 132 (1)(b) of GST Act. It was further contended that he has not threatened any witnesses whose statement was recorded when this accused was still in Judicial Custody.
The Court was not impressed with the pleadings of the Defence Counsels and observed that these were serious allegations. Dismissing the application, the Court noted that there is no ground made for interfering with the orders dated 22.12.2018 of the Ld. ASJ duly affirmed subsequently by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
