GST Registration in Name of Fictitious Company: Punjab and Haryana HC rejects Anticipatory Bail [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Mandeep @ Monty, the petitioner in the matter as GST Registration was obtained in the name of a fictitious company.

The FIR provided that the petitioner has forged receipts of property tax and photos of the shops had been forged and uploaded on the Portal for applying for a GST number thereby causing revenue loss to the government.

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the petitioner had committed any offence in question. In fact, no specific role had been assigned to him. He had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused which was inadmissible.

The Counsel further contended that the petitioner was ready and willing to join the investigation and the case was based on documentary evidence, no case for custodial interrogation was made out and the petitioner was entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

The Counsel appearing for the state submitted that prima faice offence against the petitioner was clearly made out as was evident from the investigation conducted, so far since the petitioner was running fake firms based on forged and fictitious documents thereby cheating the State Government of Crores of rupees under the pretext of GST.

The Counsel further submitted that as the offence was prima facie established and the record was to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the name of the real beneficiary was to be revealed, his custodial interrogation was certainly necessary and, therefore, he was not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.

A Single Bench comprising of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, observed that “In the instant case, a perusal of the affidavits of the State would show the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the specific role played by the petitioner. In fact, he and his co-accused had set up a fictitious firm/companies and thereby cheated the government of crores of rupees.”

“Even otherwise, recoveries of various documents are to be effected from the petitioner and the names of the real beneficiaries are to be revealed. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly required” the Bench concluded.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates