In the biggest case detected so far of fake invoices by West Delhi GST Commissionerate, the Department strongly opposed the strange application filed last week in the Court of CMM, Patiala House, New Delhi, demanding a ‘Magisterial Inquiry’ u/s 200 of Cr. PC into the investigations being conducted by the Commissionerate.
The allegation is that out of the four accused, the main beneficiary kingpin, Parvesh Jain was let off while the poor employees were arrested from whom no recovery can ever be made and that the accused were kept under detention for more than 24 hours while being produced before the Magistrate.
The case was listed on Saturday again for arguments on maintainability of the application. Applicant, a lawyer named Sharad Shingade and Ors. sought ‘preservation of CCTV footage’ is relevant to the inquiry by the magistrate.
It was alleged that Police records indicate that certain calls were made by a close relative of the kingpin to PCR alleging his unlawful detention but the GST Officials. The Police Officer who went to enquire, officially communicated to his seniors that Jain had been placed under arrest.
Such a claim has vociferously been rejected by the Commissionerate stating that no sanction to arrest had been granted in the case of Jain and that persons arrested were not mere employees but were willfully involved for benefit. The CCTV footage will actually establish that all the arrested persons were produced on the same date of arrest.
The seriousness of the matter was reflected in the entire top brass of the Commissionerate being present in the Court to resist this application. Sr. PP Mr Satish Agarwala who appeared in the place of Adv. Harpreet Singh, vehemently opposed the plea while questioning the locus standi of the applicant. He asked the Court to seek an affidavit on the veracity of such allegations.
A curious feature was the strong opposition by the Counsels representing an arrested accused to Magisterial inquiry. In turn, the applicant expressed surprise as to why should the Counsels of those arrested oppose the motion as it stood to benefit their client. Both the counsels heatedly questioned the bonafides of each other. The case now listed for 12th for orders.
