While dismissing a petition by the accused of GST evasion, the Delhi High Court upheld an order of the Sessions Court wherein it was found that the accused misused the benefit of bail and threatened the witnesses, reports Adv. Rakesh Chitkara from Delhi Bureau.
The first ever bail cancellation case being fought between Central GST Delhi West Commissionerate and alleged fake invoice scamster Rajesh Jindal witnessed a heated battle between Adv JK Mittal and Adv. Harpreet Singh in Delhi High Court before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
After a see-saw fifth round, Department overcame a serious challenge by Adv JK Mittal who tried to highlight some holes in the case investigation but remained unsuccessful.
Also Read: GST Dept attaches Bank Accounts of Actor Mahesh Babu
Bail cancellation of accused by Sessions was sustained by the High Court as accused Rajesh Jindal, in the opinion of the Court, had misused and abused the liberty granted by intimidating witnesses.
Some of these being proprietors or directors of dummy firms floated by the accused to generate fraudulent input tax credit without an actual supply of goods.
Before the Court, Mr. Mittal argued that this was a non-cognizable and bailable offense. He drew the attention of the Court on the finer distinction of relevant law and also that cogent material was needed for cancellation as laid down by Supreme Court which was absent in this case and that statements of such witnesses was vague and nowhere stated that they themselves were threatened. It was argued that the department had been changing its case and that the figures of tax evasion were inflated to mislead the Court, being the sole ground for unsuccessfully moving Court of CMM earlier. Therefore, this cancellation was unjustified.
The department, on the other hand, showed statements of witnesses to prove its point.
After considering rival arguments, the Court ordered that there is no error in the order of the Sessions Court in cancellation of bail. While dismissing the petition, the Court further opined that the accused is no longer entitled to bail.
Towards the end, the Court focused only on the conduct of the accused in violating bail conditions and rejected the challenge.
